Wednesday 22nd of September 2021

trump goes nukular...



Of course. "Trump was going to bomb the planet with nukes"...There is a bit of misunderstanding around the trap in the MSM about this. And I mean DELIBERATE MISUNDERSTANDING about what Trump has said or not said… For example: 


President Donald Trump has floated the idea of thwarting hurricanes headed for the US by bombing them, including by dropping nuclear bombs on hurricanes to disrupt their course, Axios reported, citing conversations with sources who heard Trump's comments and were briefed on a National Security Council memo that recorded the comments.





Meanwhile what looks like a self-inflated spectacled baboon opinionating ball-scratching journalist describes "demanding recount on the possibility of voting fraud" as "Aiming a Nuclear Weapon at the US Democracy"… As mentioned before, Trump may be an idiot but he is not an imbecile. In order to create a coup and usurp the Presidency, he would have to know he’d needed far more than a bunch of deplorables, a horny praying shaman taking selfies with the police and a leisurely storming of the Capitol. Trump did not need to be a student of the French Revolution or of the assassination of Caesar to know this... Gus guesses that the Bastille's guards opened the doors to let the riorters in, like at the Capitol. But Chris Hayes shits in his pants:


So, This Trump Loyalist ‘Aimed A Nuclear Weapon’ At U.S. Democracy... This is Chris Hayes on Trump’s loyalist at DOJ, Jeffrey Clark: “He was willing to be the trigger man for Donald Trump in his attempt to kill off American democracy in its present form—and that is not hyperbole.


Yes it is a hyperbole... MSNBC: About All In with Chris Hayes: Chris Hayes delivers the biggest news and political stories of the day with a commitment to in-depth reporting that consistently seeks to hold the nation's leaders accountable for their actions. Drawing from his background as a reporter, Hayes at times reports directly from the scene of a news event as it occurs to provide a firsthand account, digging deep and speaking with people who represent different points of view. Hayes brings the nation's officials, legislators, policymakers, and local activists to the table to address key issues affecting communities across America.


MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.


Blah blagph blafhphhhhh!!!  Then comes this one:


"His [Biden’s] fundamental promise was to defeat the virus, get the country up and running again, and be the polar opposite of Donald Trump by actually trying to unify the country around big goals," says Chris Hayes on Biden's campaign. "Biden is basically ticking through every box.”


Gus: And sending the country broke... Okay I am a bit unfair here… The Afghanistan retreat/debacle had not yet appeared on the horizon, but do not fear, this horror has been laid a Trump’s feet by the bloke who could not organise a piss up at the Old Criterion (Sydney pub, now demolished):


Secretary of State Antony Blinken defended the Biden administration’s handling of Afghanistan during his full opening statment before a House committee. Blinken also blamed former President Trump and Congress for the backlog of Afghan visas saying there was a, "Backlog of more than 17,000 SIV applicants.”


We know which side MSNBC's bread is buttered...






SO FAR, THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE VIDEO OF TRUMP WANTING TO DROP AN ATOM BOMB ON ANYONE… Oh yes, there plenty of reports on this and that… But this is what people say because Trump was annoying. And I mean annoying. Trump did not want to use the atom bomb but he made semi-joking noises about arming everyone with nuclear bombs outside the USA. Save money by delegating, instead of using US troops… while increasing the nuclear arsenal of the US at the same time… This of course is the signature of a MAD MAN while Obama signing off $1 trillion for improving the US nuclear arsenal was the sign of a SANE PERSON...


OF COURSE. There is no point having a nuke arsenal, if it takes you fifteen minutes to find the red button, learn the launching codes and two hours wait before blast off because the rockets aren’t fuelled yet. 


The one thing with Trump is one does not know when he jokes or not. Most of the time, he was the buffoon in charge of the kingdom with BAD JOKES that people took as bad ideas. Now with Biden, the US has the “Emperor with No Clothes” in charge. Will the “liberal” media see this? Nupe… Biden is wheeled out with white cotton gloves as not to break the thin porcelain. 


It won’t matter… And the idea of nuking a hurricane isn’t new nor exclusive to Trump which he denied having seriously suggested it...


Say, Jack W. Reed began a military career as an Air Force meteorologist during the closing days of World War II. He served in the Philippines in 1946 and rode eight missions through typhoons inside of a B-29. The power of the storms left an impact on him.


Reed joined the U.S. nuclear test program and studied the weather effects of nuclear explosions. During his time there, he developed the idea of using nukes to disperse storms.


This first involved weakening the storms and changing their trajectory  —  not necessarily destroying them. America could achieve this by detonating nukes in the air just outside the eye of the storm. Then he thought about bull’s eye: 


 the Pentagon should bomb the eye of a tropical storm, thereby dispersing it and saving countless lives and millions of dollars.


It’s ridiculous, but in the early days of atomic energy and under the auspices of a federal project aimed at the peaceful use of nuclear weapons, Reed attempted to convince the world it was a sound policy.


Despite Reed’s calculations, other meteorologists/scientists like Landsea showed tropical storms are much stronger than nukes. And the fallout from a nuclear hurricane would be horrendous.


“I’m a child of the ‘60s,” Feltgen told me. “I remember the bells going off in the school. It was a Catholic school so you had to go into the church and climb under the pews and hope to God that you were gonna survive a nuclear ….” Hope to god is as useful as bat in Wuhan, says Gus.


Reed wasn’t worried about fallout. “A clean device would minimise lingering activity placed in the atmosphere,” he wrote in his 1959 presentation. “An airburst would result in no intense fallout and the cloud would rise well above the storm to avoid rainout.


Reed died in 2007. He was still promoting his idea as of 2004.


The physics of this scheme has never been seriously questioned,” Reed told the Albuquerque Journal, though it has been challenged by countless scientists, and it’s generally agreed that fighting Mother Nature with nuclear bombs is a bad idea... 



See also:



TRUMP WOULD HAVE TO KNOW IT WAS A BAD IDEA, but like a buffoon, did he rattled the rattle just for fun?… I know, the presidency of the USA does not allow much for toilet humour, but plenty for hands on hearts while raising the flag during the burial of another soldier...


Okay… Same silly caper with doing a COUP. A Donald coup? Really?… As mentioned before, Trump had to know that ALL THE BRANCHES OF THE MILITARY HATED HIS GUTS, THE CIA AND ALL THE OTHER “INTELLIGENCE" AGENCIES WOULD HANG HIM HIGH AT HIGH NOON, THE FBI AND MOST OF THE POLICE WOULD SHOOT HIM IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, the media wanted him run-over by an escaped printing press, Twitter disowned him, his wife did not want to hold hands, his advisor JOHN BOLTON hated his arse, his niece thought he was a FASCIST, and we’re not so sure about the secret service who protected him… THEY could have done a JFK on The Donald to the applaud of the "liberals"… I think this was borderline in their own mind as this could have martyrised Trump, something that EVERYONE wanted to avoid. Trump had to be seen as MAD, rather than being a fool. Biden on the other hand has to be seen as SANE, while he’s gone completely loony-tune and devious which he was before becoming president anyway.


Luckily, on average, the rest of the world is a bit more sane than the USA, despite the religious loonies running some countries — especially Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia...


Now if you want to start WW3, your man was a woman: Hillary Clinton.




Gus Leonisky


Mad man on a good day...



FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!§§§§§§§§§§!

funding nuke think tanks...

How the nuclear weapons industry is dominating think tank research  

A recent study finds that all major institutions working on nuke policy are getting funds from companies with a vested interest in it.


Written by 


If you read a report about nuclear weapons, odds are it was published by a think tank funded by a company producing nuclear weapons. In our recent study of global nuclear weapons spending, we found that almost all major think tanks working on nuclear weapon issues took money from companies involved in the nuclear weapons industry in 2020 — raising questions about their intellectual independence and moral integrity. 

In the report, we include 12 think tanks, picked from the Global Think Tank Index’s top foreign policy think tanks that also publish regularly on nuclear weapons from France, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. We found the 21 companies that received nuclear weapon contracts gave $10 million in grants to these think tanks in just one year, as reported in the think tanks’ own annual reports and on their websites. This is a systemic issue. It’s not just one think tank, or a few $100,000 grants. Half of the profiled think tanks received up to well over one million dollars in one year from at least nine different companies working on nuclear weapons.

These companies don’t just donate money; key executives also oversee and advise several of these think tanks. Three CEOs of nuclear weapons-producing companies — Guillaume Faury (Airbus), Gregory J. Hayes (Raytheon), and Marillyn A. Hewson (until recently Lockheed Martin) — sit on the advisory board of the Atlantic Council. The Center for New American Security has a similar story: up to $1.8 million received from companies working on nuclear weapons and five board seats for those whose livelihoods are tied to nuclear weapon production. 

These links are a problem for two reasons: it raises questions about the think tanks’ independence, and it ties them to companies engaging in immoral activities banned under international law. 

Given the sway that these think tanks seek to have over nuclear policy, the extent to which they may be shaped by the funders with a vested interest in nuclear weapons is an important question. When making policy around issues that risk indiscriminate harm, there needs to be more space between those who profit from inaction and those who profess intellectual independence. 

At this stage, we do not know how the millions received by these major think tanks influenced their work, in part due to lack of transparency and unconscious bias. Not all think tanks disclose their funders. For those that do, most do not disclose program-specific funding, and seldom provide details on project- or report-specific funding. Our research does not prove that think tanks writing on the need to maintain nuclear deterrence, or build new nuclear weapon systems, do so because the companies that will benefit from nuclear weapons contracts may have paid for lunch at their seminars, or salaries for their staff. 

But the general effects of funding on the production of knowledge have been well established in other fields. In a 2020 book, Naomi Oreskesfound that the source of funding had a significant impact on the outcome of oceanography studies. Simone Turchetti wrote earlier this year about NATO’s efforts to cover up politically damaging studies on nuclear winter. And a 2018 study in the American Journal on Public Health on industry funding of public health research found limitations on the beneficiaries’ research agendas and the proposed policy solutions. The Center for International Policy’s Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative regularly reports on the “foreign influence industry working to shape U.S. foreign policy,” including a 2020 report on defense contractor funding to the top 50 U.S. think tanks over a five-year time period. 

And yet, think tank researchers often deny any influence from their nuclear weapons-producing funders. Those contacted prior to our report’s publication pointed to reports about nuclear arms control and intellectual independence policies as proof of their objectivity. However, think tank staff may not even be fully aware of the extent to which funders’ interests influence what is said and where. This means that think tanks’ explicit intellectual independence statements, while a step in the right direction, do not negate the risk of bias. Similarly, funding that is directed towards one program in a think tank may still influence other areas. Just as it is difficult to definitively prove the influence of this funding, particularly without further research, so is it impossible to deny outright that $10 million to a dozen think tanks makes no difference to the nuclear policy field.

In addition to the concerns of influence, think tanks should consider the optics of taking funds from companies producing weapons of mass destruction, which have recently been banned under international law through the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The adoption of this treaty has pushed banks and financial institutions to cut ties with nuclear weapons producers. Think tanks should follow suit.

Other fields and initiatives have grappled with controversial corporate funding either in recognition of the risk of influence or because it looks bad. The Environmental Defense Fund has come under fire for accepting funds from the fossil fuel industry. The role of the tobacco industry was so detrimental that in the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, parties are obligated to protect public health “policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry.”

This is a significant issue but it is certainly not a lost cause. Think tanks must acknowledge that there is a problem and take decisive action. They can individually or jointly pledge to not accept funding from companies working on nuclear weapons. There are already some research organizations in the field, including the Arms Control Association and the Federation of American Scientists, which did not accept any funding from nuclear weapons producers in the past year.

We’ve pointed out the nuclear weapon think tank funding problem, and now it is up to these think tanks to fix it. As long as their bank accounts and board rooms are filled with the profits and profiteers of vested interests, the independence and integrity of their research and policy solutions will be called into question. 


Read more:



Free Julian Assange NOWWWWWWWWWW

trying to eliminate the donald...

Now, if you were wondering about some articles and books written about Trump, you would be thinking that "thank XXX (god? dog?) the guy is out of the picture." But 99.99 per cent of what has been written about Trump's desire to bomb something with nukes, like a lot of the other stories are fake and designed to prevent him coming back to lead the country of idiots called the US of A. 

The ESTABLISHMENT hates Trump beyond hate...:


Fears That Trump Might Launch a Strike Prompted General to Reassure China, Book Says


In a sign of his concerns, the nation’s highest-ranking military officer also gathered commanders to remind them of the safeguards in the nuclear launch procedures.




It's designed to make you feel that the guy, Trump, is a loony. Trump is a loony/fool sure, but GENERAL Mark A. Milley is far more of a dangerous loony/psycho! Meanwhile Joe Biden's controllers turn his mike off when he's about to spurt nonsensicalities... Joe is a "nasty" deceitful loony despite trying to appear gentle — and without comprehension of the situation...

The USA are in free-fall at the moment — because instead of choosing young and able people to lead the USA out of their loony past, the PARTIES of the establishment (Democrats and Republicans) picked two old fools as leaders. (As an old kook, I know fools when I see one). At this stage this is quite dangerous as in order to get off the rut, someone might actually push Biden to do something dangerously stupid — more stupid than Trump ever did — but with massive acceptance from the "liberal" media which hate Trump beyond repair... See biden's bidet policies...

The situation is FAR more dire than one could believe...


Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Tuesday became the second senator to call for the removal of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark Milley if allegations that he tried to undermine then-President Donald Trump and promised to alert China in the case of a U.S. attack are true.


I don’t care what you think of President Trump, the Chairman of the JCOS working to subvert the military chain of command and collude with China is exactly what we do not accept from military leaders in our country. He should be court martialed if true.

Couple that with his inept handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and it is clear General Milley is no longer fit to serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and should be removed immediately.

 Earlier in the day, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) called for President Joe Biden to fire Milley in a letter charging that he undermined the former Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces by planning to commit treason. Rubio wrote:

I write with grave concern regarding recent reporting that General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, worked to actively undermine the sitting Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces and contemplated a treasonous leak of classified information to the Chinese Communist Party in advance of a potential armed conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). These actions by General Milley demonstrate a clear lack of sound judgement, and I urge you to dismiss him immediately.



According to the upcoming book Peril by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Milley worried then-President Trump would “go rogue” and orchestrated two back-channel phone calls with China’s top general promising to inform him if an attack on the Communist country were to commence.


You and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise,” Milley reportedly told his Chinese counterpart.


Read more:



milley's treason...

New excerpts from "Peril", an upcoming book by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, alleged that US Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reassured his Chinese counterpart on two occasions that the US government was stable and then-US President Donald Trump would not wage an attack on China.  The 45th president of the US took time on Tuesday to address recent reports that Milley, the senior most officer of the US Armed Forces, conferred with China on two separate occasions regarding the possibility of a US attack.  

"So, first of all, if it is actually true, which is hard to believe, that he would have called China and done these things and was willing to advise them of an attack or in advance of an attack — that's treason", Trump asserted to "Spicer & Co." host Sean Spicer during a Tuesday Newsmax broadcast.


Read more:


Then, the two authors obtained a transcript from a call between Milley and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She was also concerned about the security of nuclear weapons and encouraged Milley to keep Trump away from them.

“What I’m saying to you is that if they couldn’t even stop him from an assault on the Capitol, who even knows what else he may do? And is there anybody in charge at the White House who was doing anything but kissing his fat butt all over this?” Pelosi said. “You know he’s crazy. He’s been crazy for a long time.”

“Madam Speaker, I agree with you on everything,” Milley said.


Read more:




Read from top.