UK should give British nationality to Hong Kong citizens, Tugendhat says

 

UK should give British nationality to Hong Kong citizens, Tugendhat says

Move would be to reassure Hong Kong’s people rather than facing down Chinese threats, he says

The UK should give Hong Kong citizens full UK nationality as a means of reassurance amid the current standoff with Beijing, the chair of the influential Commons foreign affairs committee has argued.

Tom Tugendhat said this should have happened to people in the formerly British-ruled territory in 1997, when it was handed back to Chinese control, and that doing so now would reassure Hong Kong’s people that they were supported by the UK.

Hong Kong has been gripped by 10 weeks of large-scale and occasionally violent pro-democracy demonstrations, which have been met by a sometimes brutal police response, and increasingly trenchant threats from Beijing.

On Monday, two Chinese state media outlets ran video footage showing armoured personnel and troop carriers purportedly driving to Shenzhen, which borders Hong Kong, prompting concerns about military intervention.

Under the so-called “one country, two systems” arrangement that had Hong Kong returned to Chinese rule, Beijing considers the population to be Chinese nationals. However, a number of people in the territory hold what is known as a British national (overseas) passport, which gives some rights, for example to stay in the UK for up to six months, but no automatic ability to live permanently or work.

Tugendhat said: “The UK had obligations to Hong Kong citizens before 1997, and the extension of overseas citizenship, which is in many ways a second-tier citizenship, was a mistake, and I think it’s one that should be corrected. At a time when there are clearly tensions in Hong Kong, the UK could reassure many Hong Kong citizens that their existing rights are recognised by the UK, and they are valued.”

 

GO RED CHINA! GO RED CHINA! GO DAZIS! GO DAZIS!

 

 

 

 

RED China Exposed: Time for the West to put human rights ahead of trade

Beijing is prepping for a massacre in Hong Kong: time for the West to put human rights ahead of free trade

 

After eight weeks of huge Hong Kong street protests against Beijing’s rule, the People’s Republic is massing police and soldiers just across the border. Message: If the protesters don’t quit, a bloodbath is coming.

Beijing has also started denouncing the protests as the work of American provocateurs. That’s so the regime can paint its Tiananmen Square-style crackdown as a battle against “foreign influence,” not a smashing of Chinese people who decided all on their own that they’d rather be free.

A quarter-century ago, the West wagered that welcoming China into the world economy would seduce the Communist Party into allowing ever-more freedom. That bet’s been lost.

There’s precious little ideology to China’s “communism” anymore and no hint of seeking economic justice. But the party will allow no challenge to its rule. Since Xi Jinping took over as president in 2013, he’s rolled back freedom after freedom.

Christian churches are smashed and worshippers jailed; Xi has even bullied Rome into letting him choose Catholic bishops in China. Re-education camps house 1 million Uighers in a province teeming with hi-tech surveillance. Twelve million other Muslims suffer stepped-up repression and systematic abuses, notes Human Rights Watch. Buddhists deemed members of the Falun Gong movement pack prisons that provide involuntary “organ donors.”

And Hong Kong’s promised “high degree of autonomy” has become a joke. The mainland has even begun to databank its residents’ biometrics (DNA, fingerprints, voice samples, etc.), the obvious basis for eventual Big Brother surveillance.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said recently that “protest is appropriate” and “we hope the Chinese will do the right thing,” but Team Trump overall has muted criticism as trade talks continue.

Hard as it might hit the stock market, maybe human rights should become the issue in those negotiations: In the long run, America doesn’t win by trading freely with a nation run by monsters.

Article

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMmHksSxpHQ

 

 

 

GO RED CHINA! GO RED CHINA!

 

The Deep State’s Total Control with Beijing as the Mother of Managers

 

A Status Review

The good news is that our Mother of Managers, RED China, continues to franchise its “One World, One Dream” surveillance and control solution based on its own Golden Shield initiative which produces “Happy Populations and Consumers” that our actuarily our LRUs for predictable profit margin percentages.

Even though Hillary missed her moment again, Diane and her driver, Nancy, the FBI, DOJ, State, NSA, and “Central” have been very helpful.

On the downside, NAFTA and the TPP were exposed, however, the drug trade, human trafficking, and organ harvesting ventures are thriving. Others should implement the “Planned Parenthood” disguise.

Also, the Village Idiots have still not figured out the pretext and goal of Arab Spring, and we really cut it close with The Thing from 1890’s, SSN # 042-68-4425, fake war on Libya and used the crisis to expand our pretext of the Global War on Terror into Europe to ultimately benefit RED China’s loan sharking and total control blueprint.

Syria was never on the Arab Spring list, but we also turned it into an opportunity for “Sustainable Development Wherever the UN Goes or Doesn’t Go When It Ideally Should” with less people as we did with Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia etc.

Trump like Reagan has interrupted the implementation of the blueprint, but we have some plans and eventually one will work to get the implementation back on track as we are so very close. The good news is Americans are getting dumber by the minute as well as being crushed with debt while thinking their “schooling” is giving them the skill sets for financial success while we have put all the roadblocks in place to prevent that from happening thanks to all our puppets in the U.S. Congress. Eventually they will succumb to the bait of free stuff and be totally dependent on us.

Eventually, with the success of RED China’s “One World, One Dream” solution, we will be able to overcome any resistance to our plan via its built in hostage taking and extortion. RED China’s partnership with NSA and “Central” has made good use of this in America. We must continue on this path and someday very soon all will wake up from The Dream and realize it is not their Dream but our Dream and they will not be able to do anything about it when it becomes their nightmare for our benefit.

Once again, election seasons are coming up again, and we must focus on placing more Emirs into our future areas of control so that we can remove all aspects of resistance. We must make Eichmann proud!

 

 

Editors Note: Farming, Mining, and Management of The Human Kind : The pretext of altruistic endeavors that just suddenly become predatory and parasitic.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

The Blueprint for RED China’s One World One Dream:

How Arab governments use cyberspace laws to shut down activism

Critical Arab voices are being silenced on Twitter, and laws across the Middle East are created to further this cause.

by Yarno Ritzen
25 Jul 2019

In this series of articles, Al Jazeera examines how Twitter in the Middle East has changed since the Arab Spring. 

Government talking points are being magnified through thousands of accounts during politically fraught times and silencing people on Twitter is only part of a large-scale effort by governments to stop human rights activists and opponents of the state from being heard. 

For human rights activists, journalists, dissidents and free speech campaigners, social media has long been a double-edged sword, representing both the positive and harmful aspects of open communication on the internet.

On the one hand, platforms such as Twitter and Facebook allow activists the opportunity to spread their message, reaching an audience they could only dream of before the internet.

But on the other, the nature of open communication raises the risk of being followed, exposed or worse, as some governments increase their digital surveillance capabilities.

As a result, governments around the world are turning social media against their citizens.

China is the country where government control of the internet is by far the most egregious, but many countries in the Middle East are not far behind when it comes to using the internet against those who fight for a more open society, the annual Freedom of the Net report by Freedom House concluded.

Mohamad Najem, executive director at Beirut-based SMEX, a digital rights organisation focusing on issues related to freedom of expression, online privacy and safety, said social media movements had taken the Middle East by surprise and governments adapted relatively quickly, using social media against protesters and civil rights activists.

Over the last decade, SMEX has tracked how the use of social media platforms like Twitter, both by activists and governments, has changed.

“In 2011, access to these tools was still kind of new and governments underestimated them,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

Meet the activists fighting the Great Chinese Firewall

Social media allowed people in the Middle East to voice their concerns and question those in power.

During the Arab Spring, protesters were able to organise on social media, a tool that connected their realities with the rest of the world.

But governments were watching, too, and continue to closely monitor.

“Between the Arab Spring and now, we have witnessed that all the countries in the region are moving more and more towards criminalising speech,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

“The online sphere we used to go to in the Middle East to express ourselves, to talk about politics, has started to close down slowly because of all these regulations,” he added.

“People were prosecuted, thrown in jail, or they had to flee the country.”

To show what laws Middle East governments have introduced in recent years, SMEX launched Cyrilla, a website listing all proposed and passed legislation aimed at curbing free speech.

The database, which offers texts in Arabic and English and covers the entire region, shows clearly how digital liberties in the Middle East have come under attack.

Between the Arab Spring and now, we have witnessed that all the countries in the region are moving more and more towards criminalising speech.

MOHAMAD NAJEM, SMEX

It also lists several countries outside of the Middle East, including RussiaVietnam and Fiji.

“Across the Middle East, there is a large number of countries that have specifically instituted anti-terrorism and cybercrime laws that contain vague prohibitions on free speech,” Jillian York told Al Jazeera.

York is the Berlin-based director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which aims to protect civil liberties in the digital world.

Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, UAE, Qatar; all these countries have instituted cybercrime laws and in most cases, the laws are vague – quite broad,” she said.

As an example, York cited Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism legislation from 2014, which criminalises defamation of the state and defines calling for atheist thought as a “terrorist” action.

Recently, prominent Norway-based pro-democracy activist Iyad el-Baghdadi, a Palestinian who has been outspoken in his criticism of Saudi authority figures, made a plea for his safety after US intelligence agency CIA found a credible threat to his life from authorities in the kingdom.

El-Baghdadi is behind The Arab Tyrant Manual, which focuses on global authoritarianism and the struggle for democratic liberties in the Arab region. He is also a fellow at Civita, a leading liberal think-tank in Norway, where he sought asylum after he was forced to leave his home in the United Arab Emirates in 2015.

İyad el-Baghdadi | إياد البغدادي

@iyad_elbaghdadi

Spare a thought for all the dissidents, activists, journalists, and private citizens in the Arab world who get beaten, arrested, tortured, murdered without being passed tips and without being offered protection. They are the real heroes, and they are the real victims. Not me.

54 people are talking about this

But it is not just Saudi Arabia, as documented by organisations including Amnesty International and the Gulf Centre for Human Rights show.

Governments in the Middle East have started using platforms such as Twitter as amplifiers, using both automated bot accounts and well-known social media influencers to promote state-approved messaging, Najem said.

So, while activist voices are being drowned out by government-approved messages, sometimes amplified by fake Twitter accounts, campaigners also risk being jailed or are forced to leave the country because of newly implemented cybercrime or “antiterrorism” laws.

Last April, Saudi Arabia arrested three bloggers without giving any reasons for their arrest.

Similarly, the Turkish government cracked down hard last year on Twitter users who used the platform to voice their criticism of the Turkish military operation in northern Syria, claiming they were spreading “terrorist propaganda”.

The UAE, meanwhile, made it a criminal offence to show support for Qatar in the ongoing GCC crisis, claiming people who did so violated the federal decree on Combating Information Technology Crimes, possibly facing a jail term from three to 15 years, and a fine not less than 500,000 dirhams ($136,000).

According to both Najem and York, it is not just governments that are to blame for the crackdown on activists.

Part of the responsibility falls on social media companies for failing to address the issue of automated propaganda accounts and willingly helping governments in the region.

“One of the challenges with companies like Twitter – and most tech companies – is that they are based in Dubai. This is an issue because this is a country that has no respect for human rights, which means they have no respect for digital rights either,” Najem told Al Jazeera.

“We have a problem that all these companies that are being used for free speech, such as Twitter, are based in the Gulf. These are countries that are not signatory of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, so Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [giving everyone a right to freedom of opinion and expression] is not part of their mandate and freedom of expression is not something they care about.”

To add, York explained, the opaque deals these companies make with governments lead to more censorship, which is often hard to notice.

I think Twitter and all these other companies are responsible for when they say ‘yes’ whenever an authoritarian country comes to them to ask to censor certain speech.

JILLIAN YORK, EFF

“Governments sort of wisened up and, due to a number of other factors, they began instead utilising these companies to do this censorship for them,” she said.

“This is a more palatable form of censorship for the people because they don’t notice what is missing. Instead of getting an error page when you visit a website like Twitter or Facebook, the content is just missing – it has disappeared,” she added.

“That has allowed these companies to continue to engage and grow in these markets while not being blamed for the censorship.”

York believes that these companies should be incredibly limited in how they regulate speech.

Another problem, she says, is that these companies consider the Middle East as a single monolithic entity and fail to look at the nuances between different countries.

“It’s very culturally ignorant to think that Lebanese people would want the same rules as the Saudis,” she said.

“To give a concrete example of this, search engine Microsoft Bing for years censored its results in the entire Middle East based on what Saudi Arabia asked them to censor.”

As a result, York explained, Bing instituted a blanket ban for certain keywords in the whole Middle East, so, for example, because Saudi Arabia wanted all mentions of the word “breast” removed from search results, people in Lebanon were not able to use Bing to search for “chicken breast”.

Meanwhile, accessing pornographic websites directly was still possible in Lebanon.

“So, I think Twitter and all these other companies are responsible for when they say ‘yes’ whenever an authoritarian country comes to them to ask to censor certain speech.”

“These days they just do it, they don’t push back on it any more.”

Wael Abbas, an Egyptian human rights activist and blogger, used to document police brutality in Egypt.

“It’s quite clear from Abbas’s case that he was being attacked by trolls on Twitter that he alleges were government paid, but we don’t know that for sure,” York said.

“More and more we see people moving towards private platforms like WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram, which all provide more privacy.”

MOHAMAD NAJEM, SMEX

“Nevertheless, he was attacked by government supporters on Twitter, he fought back and then his account was shut down by Twitter, probably because he used language that was in their rules considered hate speech.”

His account remains suspended.

“In Wael’s example, they should not have kicked him off of the platform for using harsh language,” York said.

These sustained efforts have instilled fear among activists, many of whom have largely moved away from public platforms like Twitter and Facebook to more closed systems.

“More and more we see people moving towards private platforms like WhatsApp, Signal or Telegram, which all provide more privacy,” Najem said.

While the increased privacy of closed platforms provides some more safety for activists, reaching an audience as they did during the Arab Spring seems impossible.

Saudi women’s rights activist Souad al-Shammary looks at her Twitter account on her mobile phone. She is a liberal feminist who was jailed for her views [File: AP]

Article

GO RED China! GO RED China!

 

 

A Letter to President Trump Concerning RED China

 

Dear President Trump,

Over America’s exceptional history, successive generations have risen to the challenge of protecting and furthering our founding principles, and defeating existential threats to our liberties and those of our allies. Today, our generation is challenged to do the same by a virulent and increasingly dangerous threat to human freedoms – the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) through the nation it misrules:  the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The Chinese Communists’ stated ambitions are antithetical to America’s strategic interests, and the PRC is increasingly taking actions that imperil the United States and our allies. The past forty years during which America pursued an open policy of “engagement” with the PRC have contributed materially to the incremental erosion of U.S. national security.

This cannot be permitted to continue.

China is not as we wish it to be. In our political system, politics is the norm, and war is the exception. It is explicitly the opposite in the PRC’s worldview. Going forward, we must better understand and deal with this dangerous asymmetry.

We the undersigned, are encouraged by the broad and coherent strategy of robust, alternative policies you have adopted to confront the PRC’s campaign to undermine the national interests of the United States and its allies. We encourage you to stay the course on your path of countering Communist China.

We acknowledge and support your robust National Security Strategy that properly sets forth why the United States must counter the PRC. Opposing the advance of tyranny is fully in keeping with the founding principles of America and our rich heritage of defending freedom and liberty, both at home and, where necessary, abroad.

We note the PRC does not recognize the principles and rules of the existing international order, which under a Pax Americana has enabled the greatest period of peace and global prosperity in mankind’s history. The PRC rejects this order both ideologically and in practice. China’s rulers openly proclaim and insist on a new set of rules to which other nations must conform, such as their efforts to dominate the East and South China Seas and the so-called “Belt and Road Initiative,” with its debt-trap diplomacy, designed to extend such hegemony worldwide. The only persistently defining principle of the CCP is the sustainment and expansion of its power.

Over the past forty years of Sino-American relations, many American foreign policy experts did not accurately assess the PRC’s intentions or attributed the CCP’s reprehensible conduct to the difficulties of governing a country of 1.3 billion people. American policymakers were told time and again by these adherents of the China-engagement school that the PRC would become a “responsible stakeholder” once a sufficient level of economic modernization was achieved. This did not happen and cannot so long as the CCP rules China.

The PRC routinely and systematically suppresses religious freedom and free speech, including the imprisonment of over one million citizens in Xinjiang and the growing suppression of Hong Kong’s autonomy. The PRC also routinely violates its obligations, as it does with the World Trade Organization, freedom of navigation and the protection of coral reefs in the South China Sea. Beijing then demands that its own people and the rest of the world accept their false narratives and justifications, demands aptly termed as “Orwellian nonsense.”

The PRC is not and never has been a peaceful regime. It uses economic and military force – what it calls its “comprehensive national power” – to bully and intimidate others. The PRC threatens to wage war against a free and democratically led Taiwan.

It is expanding its reach around the globe, co-opting our allies and other nations with the promise of economic gain, often with authoritarian capitalism posing as free commerce, corrupt business practices that go-unchecked, state-controlled entities posing as objective academic, scientific or media institutions and trade and development deals that lack reciprocity, transparency and sustainability. The CCP corrupts everything it touches.

This expansionism is not random or ephemeral. It is manifestly the unfolding of the CCP’s grand strategy. The Party’s ambitions have been given many names, most recently the “China Dream,” the “great rejuvenation” of China, or the “Community of Common Destiny.” The “Dream” envisioned by the Communist Party is a nightmare for the Chinese people and the rest of the world.

We firmly support the Chinese people, the vast majority of whom want to live peaceful lives.

But we do not support the Communist government of China, nor its control by the dangerous Xi Jinping clique. We welcome the measures you have taken to confront Xi’s government and selectively to decouple the U.S. economy from China’s insidious efforts to weaken it. No amount of U.S. diplomatic, economic, or military “engagement” will disrupt the CCP’s grand strategy.

If there is any sure guide to diplomatic success, it is that when America leads—other nations follow. If history has taught us anything it is that clarity and commitment of leadership in addressing existential threats, like from the PRC, will be followed by our allies when policy prescriptions such as yours become a reality. The PRC’s immediate strategy is to delay, stall, and otherwise wait out your presidency. Every effort must be made therefore to institutionalize now the policies and capabilities that can rebalance our economic relations with China, strengthen our alliances with like-minded democracies and ultimately to defeat the PRC’s global ambitions to suppress freedom and liberty.

 

Stay the Course!

 

Author of Letter

James E. Fanell

Captain, USN (Ret)

Former Director of Intelligence & Information Operations U.S. Pacific Fleet

 

List of USA Signatures (Alphabetically)

Willard     Anderson

 

Clarence Anthony

Lieutenant Colonel, USMC (Ret)

 

Rod Azama

Director The Chancellor Group

 

Bob Baker

Former US Army Intelligence Analyst

 

Tim Beard

Rear Admiral, USN (Ret)

 

Michael Bender

Commander, USN (Ret)

 

Kenneth Benway

Lieutenant Colonel, USA (Ret)

U.S. Army Special Forces

 

Paul Berkowitz

Former Staff Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee

 

Joseph Bosco

Retired Department of Defense

 

B.E. Bostwick Jr.

Senior Intelligence Officer, GS-15 (Ret) USPACOM

 

Christopher Brassard

President Ten Eyck Group

 

Robert Brodsky

Captain, USN (Ret)

 

Nick Buck

Captain, USN (Ret)

 

Naushard Cader

Board Member/Director

Center for War and Peace Studies

 

Roger Canfield

Author americong.com and VVFH.org

 

Kevin Carrico

Senior Lecturer

Monash University

 

Dennis Carroll

 

Gordon Chang

Writer

 

Edward Connelly

PhD Chinese, Australian National University

Independent Translator

 

David Connelly III

Captain, USN (Ret)

 

Henry F. Cooper

Ambassador, former Chief Defense & Space Negotiator with the Soviet Union, SDI Director

 

Anders Corr

PhD, Publisher Journal of Political Risk

 

Demetrius Cox

Lieutenant Commander, USN (Ret)

U.S. Pacific Fleet Veteran Intelligence Officer

 

Michael Craven

 

Kenneth deGraffenreid

Former Special Assistant to the President, Senior Director of Intelligence Programs, Ronald Reagan National Security Council

 

Chuck DeVore

Lieutenant Colonel, USAR (Ret)

California State Assemblyman, 2004-2010; Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1986-1988

 

Markham Dossett

Commander, USNR (ret)

 

June Teufel-Dreyer

Professor of Political Science University of Miami

 

Ian Easton

Research Fellow Project 2049 Institute

 

Robert D. Eldridge

President

The Eldridge Think Tank

 

Richard Fisher

 

Art Furtney

Major, USMC, (Ret)

 

Frank J. Gaffney

Vice Chairman Committee on the Present Danger: China

 

Samantha Gay

 

Kerry K. Gershaneck

Professor & Senior Research Associate Thammasat University Faculty of Law (CPG)

 

Bill Gertz

Author “Deceiving the Sky: Inside Communist China’s Drive for Global Supremacy”

 

Paul Giarra

Commander, U.S. Navy (Ret)

 

Chadwick Gore

Former Staff Director House Foreign Affairs Europe, Eurasia, Emerging Threats subcommittee

 

James Grundvig

Freelance Investigative Journalist

 

Ilango Gurusamy

Owner, Freedom on Wheels LLC and Propellant Software

 

Lianchao Han

Vice-President Citizen Power Initiatives for China

 

Heath Hansen

Specialist, USA (Ret)

Veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan

 

William Hawkins

President Hamilton Center for National Strategy

 

Donald Henry

Captain, USN, (Ret)

 

William C. Horn

Captain, USN (Ret)

 

Bradley Johnson

President Americans for Intelligence Reform

 

Frank Kelly

Captain, USN (Ret)

 

Miles Killoch

 

Roy Kirvan

PhD, U.S. Intelligence Community (Ret)

 

Ted Kresge

Lieutenant General, USAF (Ret)

Former Vice Commander U.S. Pacific Air Forces

 

Emil Levine

Captain, USNR, (Ret)

 

Steve Lewandowski

 

Ben Lowsen

China Strategist U.S. Air Force / Sawdey Solution Services, LLC

 

Holly Lynch

Democrat Candidate for NY’s 10th Congressional District

 

 

Tim Lyon

Captain, USN (Ret)

 

Victor Mair

Professor University of Pennsylvania

 

Rod Martin

Founder & CEO The Martin Organization, Inc.

 

Tidal W. McCoy

Former Acting Secretary of the U.S. Air Force

 

Thomas G. McInerney

Lieutenant General, USAF (Ret)

Assistant Vice Chief of Staff U.S. Air Force

 

Randy McSmith

Master Chief Petty Officer, USN (Ret)

 

John Mengel

Captain, USN (Ret)

 

Paul Midler

Author “What’s Wrong with China”

 

John Mills

Colonel, USAR (Ret)

Director (Ret) Cybersecuritry Policy, Strategy, and International Affairs

 

James Mishina

Lieutenant Colonel, USA (Ret)

U.S. Tax Payer

 

Wayne Morris

Colonel, USMC (Ret)

Numerous Military Veteran Associations

 

Steven Mosher

President Population Research Institute

 

Denis Muller

Lieutenant Colonel, USMC (Ret)

Merle Mulvaney

Lieutenant Colonel, USA (Ret)

Member, Red Star Rising

 

Charles “Chuck” Nash

Captain USN (Ret)

 

Jim Newman

Captain, USN (Ret)

JHU/APL

 

Grant Newsham

Colonel, USMCR (retired)

Visiting Scholar, National Chengchi University, Taiwan

 

 

Roscoe Nicholson II

International Consultant

 

Peter O’Brien

Captain, USN (Ret)

 

Edward O’Dowd

PhD & Colonel, USA, (Ret)

 

Kyle Olbert

Director of Operations East Turkistan National Awakening Movement

 

Don Oliphant

President

DWO Enterprises

 

Robert Oster

Private Investor

 

Rebeca Page

Publisher

SD Metro Magazine

 

Robert Page

Chairman/CEO REP Publishing, Inc.

 

Russ Penniman

Rear Admiral, USN (Ret)

Former Reserve Deputy Commander U.S. Pacific Fleet

 

Lawrence Peter

Lieutenant Commander, USN (Ret)

 

Peter Pry

Dr. & Director EMP Task Force

 

Robert Rector

 

Eric Reddig

U.S. Navy Veteran

 

J.R. Reddig

Captain, USN, (Ret)

 

Louis Riggio

 

Eric Rohrbach

 

Robert Rohrer

 

Gerard Roncolato

Captain, USN (Ret.)

 

Warren Henry Rothman

 

Robert Rubel

Captain, USN (Ret)

 

Mark Safranski

Publisher zenpundit.com

 

Michael Schauf

Captain USN (Ret)

Military Intelligence

 

Stuart Schippereit

Commander, USN (Ret)

Former naval intelligence analyst

 

Paul Schmehl

VVFH

 

Suzanne Scholte

President Defense Forum Foundation

 

Carl Schuster

Captain, USN (Ret)

Adjunct Faculty, Hawaii Pacific University

 

Dan Seesholtz

Captain, USN (Ret)

 

Lawrence Sellin

Colonel, USAR (Ret)

Iraq and Afghanistan veteran

 

William Sharp

Former Host, Asia in Review

 

Stephen Sherman

Director RADIX Foundation

 

J. Scott Shipman

Owner B.B. Hoss, Inc.

 

Joseph Smith

President (Ret) Parke-Davis Pharmaceuticals

 

Fred Smith

Captain, USN (Ret)

Lecturer, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

 

Peter Smith

Captain, USN (Ret)

Consultant

 

Pete Speer

Lieutenant Commander, USN (Ret)

Member, Red Star Rising

 

William A. Stanton

Former Director of the American Institute in Taiwan

 

Guy Stitt

CEO AMI International

 

Duane Stober

Captain, USNR, (Ret)

Former Reserve Intelligence Coordinator Area One

 

Mark Stokes

Executive Director Project 2049 Institute

 

Fred Stratton

Commander, USN (Ret)

 

Gary Stubblefield

Commander, USN (Ret)

 

John Tate

Commander, USN (Ret)

 

Bradley Thayer

Professor University of Texas San Antonio

Mark Tiernan

Captain, USNR (Ret)

 

John J. Tkacik

Director, Future Asia Project International Assessment and Strategy Center

 

Don Tse

Lead researcher SinoInsider

 

Paul Valleley

Major General, USA (Ret)

Chairman Stand Up America

 

John E. Vinson

Captain USN, (Ret)

 

Thomas Wade

 

Arthur Waldron

Lauder Professor of international Relations

University of Pennsylvania

 

Yana Way

Educator, Way Tutoring

 

Toshi Yoshihara

PhD, Author “Red Star Over the Pacific”

 

James Zumwalt

Lieutenant Colonel, USMC (Ret)

 

Jennifer Zeng

 

Foreign Signatures

Terence Russell

Senior Scholar University of Manitoba

Canada

 

Doris Liu

Independent documentary journalist

Canada

 

Jianli Yang

Founder & President Citizen Power Initiatives for China

China

 

Elena Bernini

CEO Oxford Omnia International

Italy

 

Satoshi Nishihata

Washington Bureau Chief The Liberty, Happy Science USA

Japan

 

Larry Ong

Senior analyst SinoInsider

Singapore

 

Chu-cheng Ming

Senior researcher SinoInsider

Taiwan

SUA Sends Assistance to Chris Wallace, Shepherd Smith and CNN


The U.S. Navy Drone surveying the ocean. Looking for the NextWave. Wu Hu!

Hey Wray let’s make it easy fore U. CTO EE. It’s so much more than the Tsin Tsin Road.

SMILE! Find Judge Advocate. Find Affirmed.


“Everybody’s gone surf in’…Surf in’ USA…”

CNN: Two Fox News hosts question Trump’s comments about Iran: ‘This just doesn’t add up’.

ANSWER IS: Shure it does.

And the $240 million dollar bill which includes all the upgrades needs to go to…WHO knows…

“Poor Shep and Chris. They walked right into it. Such a thing. GO figure. &.”
– The Shark and Sparky the Clown

Trump Hits FOX News at PA Rally: “Something Very Strange Is Going On”

– Donald Trump, President of The United States of America

Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Wray…This is your Fools Brought In fore a reason…still Not Sure Dunno.

It is truly amazing when a significant piece of intel given to DHS, the FBI, and the Intel community, and after nothing was done, it winds up on a jihadi website and in perfect english. How could it be…WHO knows…Now back to that airplane hanger at Ft. Hood. U.O.

What is the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Intel Community, the Department of State, and Congress hiding?

SUA has proprietary intel concerning the greatest crimes ever committed against the American people.

 

By Jackie WattlesCNN Business

New York (CNN)Fox News hosts Chris Wallace and Shep Smith challenged President Donald Trump’s comments about when and why he decided to call off a strike against Iran.

Trump said Friday that the military was “cocked and loaded” to fire on Iran in retaliation for shooting down a US drone earlier this week. But he reversed course “10 minutes before the strike” when he learned 150 people could die in the attack, the president said in a series of tweets.
Smith said Fox News’ reporting found that Trump would have been given a casualty estimate at a briefing hours before that.
“Something’s wrong there,” Smith said about the president’s comments.
Smith then questioned Trump’s decision to “tweet out the whole thought process of American foreign policy and intervention.”
“That’s an observation,” he added. “Not a critique.”
Trump has a cozy relationship with Fox News. He’s hired a number of former employees from the network to posts within his administration.
The president also reportedly corresponds directly with Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, conservative firebrands who currently host evening programs that routinely praise the president.
Smith, who hosts daytime news coverage, and Wallace, the anchor of Fox News Sunday, have stood apart from Fox’s opinion-oriented colleagues. Smith and Wallace have previously questioned or criticized actions by Trump or his administration.

 

Article

How The U.S. Could Respond After Iran Shoots Down A $240 Million U.S. Drone

By Mark Cancian

Tensions continue to escalate in the Persian Gulf as the Iranians down one U.S. drone, shoot at another and, likely, sponsor attacks on tankers and a Saudi airport. Let’s take a look at the most recent incidents and what they might mean for the future. Will there be a war?

What happened? Early Thursday the Iranians used a surface to air missile to shoot down a U.S. drone just outside the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranians posted a video that purported to show the shootdown, and the United States acknowledged that it had lost a Broad Area Maritime Surveillance drone (BAMS-D). The Iranians claimed it was in their territorial airspace while the United States claimed it was in international airspace. Under international law, it’s a critical question, and, eventually, there will be an answer. The United States will likely salvage the wreckage, as it has with recent aircraft crashes, and the location will show where the drone actually was. However, that will take many weeks and likely be of historical interest, rather than helpful in resolving the current crisis.

What is this BAMS-D drone? This is a Navy prototype version of the Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk. The Navy’s fully developed version is called the MQ-4C Triton and is just entering production. These are very large unmanned aircraft. The wingspan is 132 feet, comparable to a civilian airliner. (For comparison, a Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 124 feet.) The drone is designed for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), the Pentagon term meaning that it has sensors to find things on the earth surface. The Navy’s version focuses on the sea, whereas the Air Force version focuses on land. Here’s how DOD describes the Navy version: “The MQ-4C will provide the Navy with a persistent maritime ISR capability. Mission systems include inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar, Electro-optical/Infra-red Full Motion Video, maritime moving target detection, Electronic Support Measures, Automatic Identification System, a basic communications relay capability, and Link-16.” Because of their size, BAMS-D and Triton are land based.

BAMS-D is not stealthy, is unarmed, flies relatively slowly, and has essentially no defensive systems. Its only defense is to fly high, at 60,000 feet. Because of its vulnerability, it is not designed to operate in a contested area. Its great advantage is that it can fly for over 32 hours continuously, far longer than any human crew could endure.

So, what was it doing there? Although the Pentagon has not stated what the mission was, one presumes that it was watching for more tanker attacks. Four ships were attacked in May and two more last week. If the U.S. could catch whoever was doing the attacks, presumedly Iran, then it might be able to thwart future attacks and have the evidence needed to convince domestic and international audiences of Iran’s culpability.

Does this thing really cost $240 million? Yes…and no. Because DOD weapons are custom-built, they don’t have price tags like equipment does in the civilian world. Systems have many possible costs depending on what is included and what the number is used for. Thus, different commentators have cited different costs for this aircraft, for example, $120 million or $180 million.

Since BAMS-D is a version of the Air Force RQ-4, we can use the RQ-4’s official acquisition report, called the Selected Acquisition Report, to calculate a cost for BAMS-D. This report shows an average procurement cost over the whole program of $122 million in FY 2015 dollars or about $130 million in FY 2019 dollars. That excludes the research and development costs, which are mostly sunk at the beginning of the program. If those were included, the cost per aircraft would increase to about $240 million (FY 2019 dollars). To make things even more complicated, there is something called the “flyaway cost,” which is the cost of a system coming out of the factory without some of the support elements in the “procurement” cost. The “flyaway cost” of a new MQ-4C replacement for the lost BAMS-D is a bargain, at $102 million (FY 2019 dollars).

No matter which cost you pick, however, this was an expensive system. It is a very large aircraft with many sophisticated sensors on it.

What were these other attacks? Apparently, Iranians also shot at another drone last week, an MQ-9 Reaper (replacement for the legendary MQ-1 Predator), but missed. That it missed is likely because Reapers are much smaller than the MQ-4C and thus harder to hit. They are also much less expensive, costing about $30 million. The Reaper drone, like the MQ-4C that was shot down, was likely looking for perpetrators of the tanker attacks and was probably the source of the video about Iranians removing mines from the attacked tankers.

Also last week a group of Iranian back Yemeni rebels attacked a Saudi airport with cruise missiles, one of a series of such attacks. The bottom line is that these drone and tanker attacks are not isolated incidents but part of the campaign by Iran to put pressure on its major enemies, the United States and Saudi Arabia, and, indirectly, on the Europeans, Japanese and others to get relief from U.S. sanctions.

What’s going to happen next? The Iranians are signaling that they will not accept the U.S. imposed sanctions passively. They are striking back as they always have: asymmetrically and in the “gray zone.” Asymmetrically means they are not meeting U.S. strength head-on and the gray zone means they are maneuvering in the space between war and peace. Likely, the Iranians will continue to initiate “incidents.” By maintaining some deniability and not injuring human beings, the Iranians have been very clever in keeping these incidents below the level where the United States would respond with force.

At some point, the Iranians may cross these lines either by injuring an American or by being caught red-handed in conducting an attack. Then, the United States would almost certainly respond with force. This happened in the 1980s when the United States caught the Iranians laying sea mines in the Persian Gulf and retaliated by sinking half of the Iranian Navy.

The U.S. has the capability in theater now to conduct a retaliatory strike, likely against the air defense battery that shot down the drone. According to the New York Times, an attack on Iranian radar and missile batteries was prepared for Thursday, but the operation was cancelled. Strikes could also be directed against Iranian naval capabilities that might have carried out the tanker attacks. The U.S. does not have enough assets in theater to conduct an extended air-naval campaign, even with the additional thousand troops being sent. It certainly does not have the capability to conduct any ground campaign against Iran.

More likely, however, is something non-kinetic. The president is reluctant to get into a shooting war, having campaigned against such involvements. Instead, the United States might take some covert action like the cyber-attack that was allegedly recently conducted against Russia. It might start escorting ships and aircraft through the Straits of Hormuz. The NATO allies and Japan might be willing to support such an action.

Unfortunately, the situation is not stable. Most likely, there will be additional incidents within a week with each carrying the risk of escalation. Last August, I wrote a piece looking at indicators of a possible conflict (Is The US Going To War With Iran? Five Indicators To Watch For). Three have occurred (“increased naval activity,” “Iranian complaints about reconnaissance flights,” and “increased security at regional U.S. bases”).

Article

China hacked US Army transport orgs TWENTY TIMES in ONE YEAR

FBI et al knew of nine hacks – but didn’t tell TRANSCOM

Article

 

U.S. Attacks Iran With Cyber Not Missiles — A Game Changer, Not A Backtrack

Article

From 2014 and earlier…OOOPS…It is re levant.

China targets own operating system to take on likes of Microsoft, Google


Article

“I think we missed the BAMS-D thing and finding Omar…”

 

Now back to MAR-A-LAG-O. All along the watchtower. It’s not the Hawaiian but it will do.