How the Antichrist Will Undermine Trump’s Plan

President Trump’s ban targeting certain Muslim-majority countries is supposed to make the U.S. safer, but in doing so he may have guaranteed defeating ISIS will get harder.

Kimberly Dozier

01.29.17 1:38 PM ET

Team Trump’s travel ban, or pause, or whatever reverse politically correct term you want to call it, has sparked simmering fury among America’s Muslim allies. The media splash meant to show that President Donald Trump means business about keeping America safe, and keeping his campaign promises, is ironically damaging the very campaign against terrorism he wants to put into overdrive.
Key allies in the fight against the so-called Islamic State are dumbfounded, but few are making official statements, unwilling to pick a fight with the pugnacious new White House. 
But the Iraqi government, managing a fragile and fractious multi-ethnic coalition against ISIS, is treading carefully. Government spokesman Saad al-Hadithi told the AP that Iraqis are hoping the “measures will be temporary and for regulatory reasons and not permanent at least for Iraq.”
Other allies? Not so diplomatic.
“This is an insult to us all,” said one Afghan official reached Sunday. “To treat all as terrorists is not what inspires support and confidence among friends.”
Afghanistan is not among the seven nations listed in President Donald Trump’s executive order, but the official said the public response to the order was prompting questions in Kabul about how long the government could allow U.S. troops to remain, without suffering a backlash from its own people.
The order signed Friday suspends travel for 90 days for travelers from seven predominantly Muslim nations deemed to be centers of terrorist activity – Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The executive order also suspends the entire U.S. refugee program for four months. Trump insists it’s “not a Muslim ban” but he’s also spoken of giving Christian refugees priority, which has been read in the Muslim world as casting them as second-class citizens.
Anger is spreading to the Arab street, reflected in social media and newspaper articles – the kind of RAGE that fueled the Arab Spring revolt against Mideast dictators – therefore, the kind Muslim leaders take very seriously.
Like the Afghan official, others say that if this sentiment builds, it will make it harder to cooperate publicly with the U.S. on counterterrorist issues, and harder still to host U.S. troops on their soil.
The various officials who spoke to The Daily Beast say they understand the implementation had to be a surprise, so as not to spark a rush for the U.S. border ahead of an announced deadline. But the haphazard execution at U.S. border entry points, and the lack of briefings even after the order was signed have made it harder for them to defend America’s actions back home.
 “We read about it in leaks to the media, and kept waiting for State Department officials to brief us, but the calls never came,” said a senior Mideast diplomat who didn’t know what to tell his government when the news broke.
That may be because most State Department officials were blindsided too, according to multiple persons familiar with the matter. U.S. diplomats in Baghdad complained the ban would keep a top Iraqi general in the ISIS fight from visiting family in the U.S., stop General Electric from hosting Iraqi delegates in the U.S. as part of a $2 billion energy deal, and send the wrong signal to some 62,000 applicants being considered for relocation for aiding the U.S. during the war. That was among the possible fallout of the new policy, listed in a letter obtained by The Wall Street Journal, sent Saturday from the U.S. embassy in Baghdad to the State Department.
A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the letter, but said they remain “in close contact with our coalition partners on a range of issues,” in the quest to defeat ISIS.
Already, Iraqi militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr called on all American citizens to leave Iraq. Sadr’s group killed hundreds of U.S. troops during the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but has held its fire during the ISIS fight, as it technically answers to the Iraqi prime minister, under the umbrella of the 140,000-strong Popular Mobilization Forces. General Stephen Townsend, who commands the coalition effort in Iraq, told The Daily Beast in December that PMF forces were behaving mostly lawfully and not attacking U.S. troops. The U.S. even intercepted some communications from some members asking their leadership for permission to attack the Americans – and being told to stand down.
But that was before the Trump White House delivered what is being taken as an insult to Muslim pride – seeming to apply suspicion to all, in the same vein as National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s tweet that “Fear of Muslims is rational.” 
So far, the mission against ISIS has been going as planned. 
“We remain focused on killing the bad guys,” with strikes, training, surveillance and intelligence support to the Iraqis and other local forces continuing, said a U.S. military official who is part of the fight. “All those missions continue with no disruption.”
But it’s unclear to U.S. military officials what sort of knock-on effect this will have on programs that bring Iraqi officers or politicians to the states for short term courses or high-level meetings – the kind of effects the U.S. embassy warned of in its letter.
 “We gotta let the rules play out and determine what the impact is,” the officials said.

Why Australia is a Nuclear Horn (Daniel 7:7) Australian Uranium Mining Sites Australian Uranium Mining Sites


Global uranium production is expected to increase at a compound annual growth rate of 4.3 per cent, to reach 76,493 tonnes in 2020, research and consulting firm GlobalData revealed.
The company’s latest report states that growth in production is needed to meet upcoming demand from new reactors. It outlined that output at Four Mile increased from 750t in 2014 to 990t in 2015.
There are 22 new reactors scheduled for completion in 2017, with a total capacity of 22,444 megawatts (MW), according to GlobalData.
This includes eight reactors in China with a combined capacity of 8510 MW, two reactors in South Korea with a combined capacity of 2680 MW, two reactors in Russia with a combined capacity of 2199 MW, and four reactors in Japan with a combined capacity of 3598 MW.
Global uranium consumption is forecast to increase by five per cent, to reach 88,500t of triuranium octoxide (U₃O₈) in 2017.
The major expansions to nuclear capacity are projected to occur in China, India, Russia and South Korea over the next two years to 2018. The United States is forecast to remain the largest producer of nuclear power in the short term, with the recent completion of the 1200 MW Watts Bar Unit 2 reactor in Tennessee.
Cliff Smee, GlobalData’s head of research and analysis for mining, said: “Commercial operations at the Cigar Lake project in Canada commenced in 2014, with an annual uranium metal capacity of 6900t.
“The project produced 4340t of uranium in 2015, compared with 130t in 2014. Meanwhile, production at the Four Mile project in Australia rose from 750t in 2014 to 990t in 2015.
“By contrast, production from the US declined by 32 per cent in 2015, while in Namibia it decreased by 20 per cent. This was due to respective declines of 33 per cent each at the Smith Ranch-Highland and Crow Butte mines in the US, and falls of 20 per cent and 13.6 per cent at the Rossing and Langer Heinrich mines in Namibia.”

Before the First Nuclear War (Revelation 8)

Michael Krepon
January 29, 2017
Nuclear dangers are growing in five different regions. The least noticed is South Asia. New Delhi has not been able to figure out how to deal with militant groups that enjoy safe havens in Pakistan. So far, India’s options have been to do nothing after attacks or execute war plans that invite mushroom clouds. A third option, which involves commando raids, may now be coming into view.
During seven decades of strained relations, Indian war planning has been downsized from fighting major conflicts to fighting limited conventional wars. Comparatively speaking, moving from limited conventional war to commando raids is a step in the right direction. But this progression offers little consolation when the potential for escalation is ever present, and when nuclear weapons serve as a backdrop to every military encounter.
India’s classic war plan against Pakistan centered on large-scale, time-consuming mobilizations along two main fighting corridors. This plan didn’t help India after the “Twin Peaks” crisis, sparked by a brazen attack on the Indian parliament in 2001. India carried out a massive mobilization, but Pakistan’s army deployed faster after a delayed start, which made the prospect of a full-scale conventional war under the shadow of nuclear weapons a poor choice for New Delhi.
War plans don’t go away; they evolve. India’s army then pivoted to plans for quick strikes and shallow advances along many possible avenues of attack. Rawalpindi countered by embracing nuclear weapons tailored for various kinds of battlefield use. The Indian Army’s so-called “Cold Start” doctrine remains on the books, even though implementation is problematic due to long-standing disconnects in civil-military relations, joint-military operations and military procurement. More importantly, a limited conventional war, no matter how carefully planned, may not stay limited. India’s civilian leaders have yet to endorse the army’s plans, and didn’t employ them after the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Since then, Pakistan has been more victimized by acts of terror than India. But because the perpetrators are overwhelmingly homegrown—and since they have refrained from attacking Indian targets—their carnage does not prompt war scares on the subcontinent.
In contrast, attacks against Indian targets that originate in Pakistan have clear escalatory potential. They typically occur after New Delhi makes overtures to improve relations with Pakistan. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made three such overtures. He invited Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to attend his inauguration in May 2014, he agreed in July 2015 to resume a composite dialogue on all outstanding issues, and he made an unannounced visit to Lahore bearing birthday and wedding gifts for Nawaz Sharif and his family on Christmas Day 2015.
Attacks on Indian military camps or consulates in Afghanistan followed after each of these overtures. After the attack on the Indian military outpost at Uri last September, Modi dispensed with diplomacy and adopted a very hard line. The announcement of “surgical strikes” across the Kashmir divide followed, and were reinforced by pointed references to Pakistan’s jugular—stirring up greater disaffection in Baluchistan and revisiting the Indus Waters Treaty.
Relations between India and Pakistan are now stuck in a bad place and have poor prospects of improvement in the near term. Bilateral diplomacy is limping along, the Kashmir Valley is seething due to ham-fisted governance and a lockdown by Indian security forces, and artillery fire can again be heard across the Kashmir divide.
Rawalpindi’s military’s campaign against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan will probably never end. But now that it is winding down, Pakistan is being asked what the next step in counterterrorism operations might be. So far, there has been no answer. Taking aim at the Afghan Taliban leadership and the Haqqani network seems unlikely, because ceding influence in Kabul to India is not in the cards. Tackling anti-India and violence-prone sectarian groups also seems problematic because doing so would result in a more intrusive military presence and significant spikes of violence—especially in the Punjab. To turn against anti-India groups when Modi has adopted a hard line and when Kashmiris are deeply disaffected doesn’t seem likely. Consequently, much is now left to chance—particularly additional attacks on Indian military and diplomatic outposts.
Domestic politics and shrill social and television media militate against hesitant Indian reactions, even to low-level attacks by groups enjoying safe havens in Pakistan. Hotheads don’t care that attacks against Indian targets have hurt Pakistan’s regional and international standing; nor do they care whether or not India retaliates. New Delhi expects support—or at least silence—if it decides to strike back.
Meanwhile, Pakistan’s diplomacy is hamstrung. The talking point that Pakistan does not distinguish between “good” and “bad” terrorists is belied by facts on the ground. Calls for a resumption of dialogue and a focus on conflict resolution do not resonate because “bad” terrorists that enjoy safe havens stymie both. Until it takes very hard, demonstrable steps against these groups, Pakistan cannot expect a fair hearing about its legitimate grievances.
Michael Krepon is Co-founder of the Stimson Center. His latest edited volume is The Lure and Pitfalls of MIRVs: From the First to the Second Nuclear Age.
Image: Pakistani Shaheen-I ballistic missile. Pixabay

Indian Point Controversy Before the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6)

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Clean Energy Standard is an investment in our clean-energy future. To suggest the CES is a bailout for the state’s nuclear plants fails to recognize the great value they provide (“Better alternatives to Cuomo’s nuclear-plant bailout,” Jan. 9).
The benefits, especially the nuclear component, help the state achieve its clean-air objectives while minimizing costs compared to alternatives. Opponents incorrectly claim the zero-emission credits program is a tax and will increase electricity bills. This could not be further from the truth. A Brattle Group report found it will save consumers $1 billion a year, or $12 billion by 2030, compared with replacing upstate nuclear plants immediately with 100% renewable energy.
The notion that we can just replace them with renewable power is misguided and would mean the 15% loss of the state’s electricity supply, raising electricity prices more than the cost of zero-emission credits.
New York’s upstate nuclear facilities supply thousands of jobs to highly skilled workers and stimulate upstate economies, supporting businesses and schools. Preserving nuclear plants will help New York remain a leader in carbon reduction while retaining well-paying jobs and keeping energy prices low. That is something we should all support.
The writer is business manager of IBEW Local 97, which represents 4,700 power-industry workers in New York.
A version of this article appears in the January 30, 2017, print issue of Crain’s New York Business.

Antichrist wants Americans out over Trump’s ban on Muslims

Top Iraqi cleric wants Americans out over Trump’s ban on Muslims
Press TV
Prominent Iraqi cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, has censured US President Donald Trump over his executive order to ban entry into the US of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries, calling for the expulsion of American nationals from the Arab country in retaliation.
“It would be arrogance for you to enter freely Iraq and other countries while barring them the entrance to your country … and therefore you should get your nationals out,” Sadr said in a statement published on his website on Sunday.
Iraqi parl. says govt. must reciprocate US travel ban
Meanwhile, Iraqi parliament’s foreign affairs committee has decried the measure as “unfair,” and asked the Iraqi government to “reciprocate” the travel curbs imposed on Iraqis.
“We ask the Iraqi government to reciprocate … the decision taken by the US administration,” the committee said in a statement, adding, “Iraq is in the frontline of the war of terrorism … and it is unfair that the Iraqis are treated in this way.”
“We clearly demanded that the Iraqi government deal reciprocally in all issues… with the United States of America,” Hassan Shwairid, the deputy head of the committee, told AFP.
On January 27, Trump signed a sweeping executive order to make good on his promised Muslim Ban.
The new Republican president’s order imposes a 90-day ban on the entry of citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia, blocks refugees from Syria indefinitely, and suspends all refugee admissions for 120 days.
Iraq’s popular forces want Americans out
In a related development, the pro-government Popular Mobilization Forces, commonly known by the Arabic word Hashd al-Sha’abi, also urged Iraqi authorities to bar the entrance of Americans into the country.
“After the decision of the American president to prohibit the entry of Iraqi citizens to the United States of America, we demand Americans be prevented from entering Iraq, and the removal of those of them who are present,” Hashd al-Sha’abi said in a statement.
The statement did not clarify whether the demand applies to the US military personnel already deployed to Iraq or not.
Thousands of American troops are currently in Iraq as part of the so-called US-led coalition against Daesh Takfiri terrorist group.
Hashd al-Sha’abi fighters joined forces with Iraqi army soldiers and Kurdish Peshmerga forces in a major operation on October 17, 2016 to retake the strategic northern city of Mosul from Daesh extremists.
The pro-government fighters also played a major role in the liberation of Tikrit, located 140 kilometers northwest of the capital, Baghdad, as well as Fallujah city in the western province of al-Anbar among many areas in Iraq.
The reactions to Trump’s Muslim ban come amid reports that the Iraqi government plans to lobby the US administration to mitigate the impact of restrictions on Iraqi travelers and preserve cooperation in the anti-Daesh campaign.
On Saturday, protests broke out at major US airports, including Dallas, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and New York, after border agents began detaining refugees and immigrants arriving in the country.
Families anxiously waited to learn the fate of their loved ones at terminals, while protesters chanted “Let them in” and “This is What America Looks Like.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also filed a lawsuit, challenging Trump’s executive order on behalf of two Iraqis who were detained at New York’s John F. Kennedy airport on Friday.
ACLU lawyers successfully argued for a temporary stay, allowing the detained travelers to stay in the country.

Cuomo’s Nuclear Disaster Comes At The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12)

Andrew Cuomo’s coming nuclear disaster

While negotiators in Paris were hammering out a new agreement to reduce greenhouse gases, New York state announced a plan to reduce its carbon emissions 40 percent by 2030. And yet the state is, at the same time, making it virtually impossible to do so.
Any energy plan that clearly recognizes the role nuclear energy has in reducing dangerous emissions should be welcomed by all New Yorkers — and would be if it wasn’t clear that the state is picking and choosing which nuclear-power facilities should stay open at the expense of taxpayers, especially those in New York City.
The new plan to transition the state to a lower-carbon-energy portfolio includes developing a process to prevent the premature closure of nuclear plants upstate.
While it comes too late to save Entergy Corp.’s FitzPatrick plant in Oswego — slated to close within two years — the plan appears to be designed to throw a lifeline to another upstate facility: the Ginna nuclear power plant in the upstate town of Ontario.
This fall, owner Exelon and grid operator Rochester Gas & Electric worked out an agreement that will keep Ginna operating through March 2017. Beyond that, the plant’s fate remains uncertain due to economic pressures caused by an electricity market flooded with low-cost natural gas.
The troubling contradiction is that the state is also taking action to shut down Indian Point Energy Center in Buchanan, the single best tool New York City has to help meet carbon-reduction goals.
As the state has recognized, nuclear energy not only supports the state’s emission goals, but also keeps electricity bills low and stable for citizens. However, on Nov. 16, the state asked the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deny the relicensing of Indian Point.
For decades, nuclear energy has safely served as the backbone of the Northeast’s carbon-free energy supply. In fact, Indian Point alone generates 25 percent of New York City’s electricity and 10 percent of the electricity for all New Yorkers. Moreover, the two reactors at Indian Point produce about one-quarter of the state’s carbon-free electricity.
The entire debate around extending the operation of Indian Point becomes even more important when you consider its role in meeting the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
Under these climate rules, New York must reduce 3.3 million short tons of carbon dioxide by 2030. Removing Indian Point, which prevents the release of 9.3 million short tons of carbon dioxide a year, would make this requirement significantly harder to meet.
To put these numbers in perspective, the amount of carbon dioxide the state would need to reduce, to make up for Indian Point’s closure, is the equivalent of the annual greenhouse-gas emissions of more than 2.4 million passenger cars.
Clean, affordable and reliable — these are the necessary elements for sound energy plans as states like New York look to meet their emissions-reductions requirements under the Clean Power Plan. The one large-scale source of energy that meets these requirements is nuclear energy.
Albany’s plan to mandate renewable-energy sources even recognizes the value of nuclear energy — although the state only seems to see a place for the low rates and reliable power for upstate residents.
New York shouldn’t be picking when and where nuclear energy should be allowed to operate. The state should be supporting all of its clean-energy industry, not standing against it.
Christine Todd Whitman, former NJ governor and former Environmental Protection Agency administrator, is president of The Whitman Strategy Group and co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition.

Babylon The Great’s Freedoms Head South

Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor Stephen Bannon during a press conference at the White House
Mr Bannon, formerly the head of the populist right-wing, Breitbart News website, will join high-level discussions about national security.
The order was signed on Saturday.
The director of national intelligence and the joint chiefs will attend when discussions pertain to their areas.
Under previous administrations, the director and joint chiefs attended all meetings of the NSC’s inner circle, the principals’ committee.
Profile: Stephen Bannon
What executive actions has Trump taken?
The National Security Council (NSC) is the main group advising the president on national security and foreign affairs.
It is led by retired lieutenant-general Mike Flynn, who was one of Mr Trump’s closest advisers and most ardent supporters during the campaign.
“The security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries,” Mr Trump’s executive order said.
“Accordingly, the United States Government’s decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative.”
Last week, Mr Bannon described the US mainstream media as “the opposition party”, saying it should “keep its mouth shut”.
The site he once managed, Breitbart News, serves up an anti-establishment agenda that critics accuse of xenophobia and misogyny. Under Mr Bannon, it became one of the most-read conservative news and opinion sites in the US.
Mr Trump also ordered a restructuring of the Homeland Security Council.
In two separate measures, the president ordered:

Antichrist says Americans should leave Iraq

Iraqi Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr delivers a sermon to worshippers during Friday prayers at the Kufa mosque near Najaf, Iraq September 23, 2016
Reuters/Alaa Al-Marjani
It would be arrogance for you to enter freely Iraq and other countries while barring to them the entrance to your country … and therefore you should get your nationals out,’‘ Moqtada al-Sadr said on his website, commenting on U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision.
The Iraqi government has so far declined to comment on the executive order signed by Trump on Friday, which suspends the entry of travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for at least 90 days {nL1N1FH1XY].
(Reporting by Maher Chmaytelli, editing by Larry King)

The Growing Asian Nuclear Horns (Revelation 8)

Vishwanath Patil and Manoj
G02:24 PM, January 28, 17
No-dong-B Medium-Range Ballistic Missile
North Korea, India and Pakistan launched a total of about 37, some capable of carrying nuclear weapons in 2016 making it one the busiest years for medium-to-long-range missile tests in recent memory.
North Korea reportedly carried out about 25 medium to long range missile test launches of which just one was claimed as a success by Pyongyang. India carried out seven while Pakistan launched four, and China launched one.
North Korea started 2016 with conducting its fourth nuclear weapons test on January 6. Pyongyang announced it as a success with the detonation of a miniaturized hydrogen bomb.
On February 7, North fired a long-range rocket. It claimed that the rocket was carrying a satellite which was viewed as a front for testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by US, Japan and South Korea.
Pyongyang tested a Musudan, an intermediate-range ballistic missile on April 15, a month after the UN imposed a ban on North Korea to carry out nuclear tests and against usage of ballistic missile technology under Resolution 2270.
North Korea also fired a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) on April 23. The missile blew up minutes after the launch. This was the second SLBM tested by North Korea. The first one was attempted in 2015.
Later, in the same week, on April 28, Pyongyang tested two more Musadan missiles. On May 30, North Korea carried out another Musadan launch. All of these failed.
North Korea posted success of Musadan ICBM on June 21, after it tested two more Musadan missiles. One of them was partially successful, it claimed.
A submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM) was tested on July 9 which exploded after flying for 6 miles.

The Realty Of The Nuclear End (Revelation 15)

Mustafa Kibaroglu
A Bulletin reader named Ryan Alt argues in the comments to this roundtable that “it is very difficult to imagine [a nuclear weapon] ban [treaty] as anything more than wishful thinking.” Another reader, Keith B. Rosenberg, writes that one should “[n]ever make a treaty that will not be adhered to”—essentially, that the ban treaty is too idealistic to be feasible.
I’ll argue the opposite—that realistically appraising nuclear weapons and their dangers demands the negotiation of a ban treaty. What is overly idealistic is to believe that humanity, if it possesses nuclear weapons indefinitely, will indefinitely manage to avoid nuclear war.
This brings me around to the concept of deterrence, which my roundtable colleagues Joelien Pretorius and Polina Sinovets have debated. My own view is that the Cold War may have represented a golden age for deterrence—and that age is now over. The Cold War world was organized around two superpowers that each possessed tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, ready for use at any time. The weapons could be delivered using air-based, land-based, and sea-based platforms. Both sides were confident in the other’s ability to launch a second strike; this confidence deterred a first strike.
But the world has grown more complicated. It isn’t organized anymore into stable blocs around two superpowers—rather, power has become more diffuse and nuclear weapons have spread. In nuclear South Asia, relations between India and Pakistan are worryingly unstable. In North Korea, Kim Jong Un himself may be worryingly unstable.
Today’s leadership profiles in the United States and Russia are arguably no better. Donald Trump’s control of the US nuclear arsenal has rattled expert observers ever since he emerged as a serious contender for the presidency. Vladimir Putin behaves with increasing aggression, virtually daring the West to put its foot down.
Realist thinkers have traditionally portrayed individuals in charge of nuclear weapons as rational actors, capable of performing accurate cost-benefit analyses and responding sensibly to the reality that potential adversaries possess nuclear weapons too. Some realist scholars have argued that the world would achieve greater strategic stability if more states possessed nuclear weapons. But even realists ought to realize that most leaders controlling nuclear weapons today can’t necessarily be trusted to behave rationally.
A characteristic of nuclear weapons that distinguishes them from all other weapons is that the destruction they cause is irreversible. After nuclear war, no program of reconstruction could ameliorate nuclear winter. No human effort could remove enormous amounts of poisonous radiation from the environment. Is it unrealistic, then, to be alarmed about the current leadership in the major nuclear weapon states? Even realists ought to admit that it is not.
So is it realistic to wait passively for disarmament while the power to launch nuclear-tipped missiles rests with leaders whose rationality is in question? Or is it realistic to work toward disarmament, including through a ban treaty, so that no irrational leader can ever initiate a nuclear war?
Oh, don’t forget—once your leader presses the button, it will be too late to say “Oops.”