A lawyer for Julian Assange said on Wednesday that President Obama’s commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence did not meet the deal that was set by WikiLeaks.
As a result, Barry Pollack claimed that Assange will not be facing extradition to the United States. While Assange has not been charged publicly, his legal team has alleged that he has been indicted in secret. They also claim that the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act will be used against Assange.
If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case https://t.co/MZU30SlfGK
Noting that Chelsea Manning was not released immediately, Pollack said “Obama violated the deal” that was put forth by Wikileaks.
“Mr. Assange welcomes the announcement that Ms. Manning’s sentence will be reduced and she will be released in May, but this is well short of what he sought,” Pollack told The Hill via email. “Mr. Assange had called for Chelsea Manning to receive clemency and be released immediately.”
Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison when she was charged under the Espionage Act for handing information to Wikileaks that exposed atrocious human rights violations.
Manning will be set free on May 17, after having been in military custody since 2010. She was originally serving a 35-year sentence, which is notably the longest punishment ever imposed on an American whistleblower.
The White House has denied that Assange and Wikileaks’ deal had anything to do with the decision to commute Manning’s sentence. The fact that Assange remains free—and dodged a bullet that many feared—is huge news for anyone who supports a free and transparent government.
What do you think about this news? Let us know in the comments!
The former NSA contractor turned whistleblower has lived in Russia for the last three years.
“Essentially, he now has every reason to apply for [Russian] citizenship in the future, in a while, as the law [states] that one needs to spend no less than 5 years on the territory of Russia [to be granted citizenship],” Snowden’s lawyer Anatoly Kucherena told RIA Novosti news agency.
“This means that if he decides [to apply for citizenship] in the near future, it will be legally possible. He has now lived in Russian for almost four years, has not violated any laws, and there are no [legal] claims against him – this is one of the reasons his residence permit was extended,” Kucherena explained.
In a statement to Interfax, Kucherena also expressed hope that the incoming Trump administration would change Washington’s attitude towards the whistleblower.
“I hope that the administration of President-elect Donald Trump will be more sensitive and objective in its consideration of the Snowden issue and will change the attitude the official authorities [have expressed] towards it,” Kucherena stated on Wednesday, saying that in order “to do this, they need only to work through Snowden’s story and realize that he did not commit any crime.”
Caleb Stephen is a Christian conservative freelance journalist, columnist, political activist and the founder and Editor-In-Chief of The Caleb Report (CalebReport.com). Caleb has written for and has articles published on world-renowned websites including World Net Daily (WND), The Daily Caller, The Huffington Post, The Times of Israel, The San Francisco Post, Intellihub, Natural News, Before It’s News and Rense.com He is an international reporter for WeAreChange.org Visit his website www.calebstephen.com and follow him on Twitter @CalebSOfficial
If there is one thing we know about Russian President Putin, it is that he is brutally honest, and he does not hold back. His latest sensational comments put the nail in the coffin of this whole “Russian hacking” scandal that we have been hearing about for the past two months.
Putin responded to rumors that Russia has compromising and embarrassing information on Trump, and he insisted that while Russia’s “prostitutes are the best in the world,” he doubts Trump “would fall for them.”
Putin then accused the Obama administration of spreading fake news in order to undermine Trump. He said the allegations are “binding the president-elect hand and foot to prevent him from fulfilling his election promises.”
Putin also said that those behind the leak must be “worse than prostitutes” because they have “no moral scruples.”
“I don’t know Mr. Trump personally, I have never met him and don’t know what he will do on the international arena,” Putin said.” So I have no grounds to attack him or criticize him for anything, or protect him or whatever.”
Most importantly, Putin warned Trump to beware of a “Maidan-style” coup d’état as he prepares for his inauguration.
“I have an impression they practiced in Kiev and are ready to organize a Maidan in Washington, just to not let Trump take office,“ Putin said, referencing the coup d’état that led to the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014.
It is important to note that it was NATO that provided the support behind this transfer of governments, and that sparked the revolution inside of the Ukraine. The Clinton Global Initiative, U.S. aide, and the national endowment all came together to support the government transferring from being pro-Russia to pro-European Union.
Trump and Putin are reportedly scheduled to meet during Trump’s first foreign trip as president.
What do you think about this news?Let us know in the comments!
Hitman Edgar Matobato told a Senate hearing that Duterte ordered hits of his political employees in the 1980’s when Duterte was mayor, even saying that the former mayor took part in the killings and was the leader of the “Lambada Boys” – a Philippean gang and precursor to another gang, the Davao Death Squad.
“Mayor Duterte was the highest leader of DDS,” Edgar Matobato said in his affidavit.
Edgar Matobato also alleged that Duterte knew about the drug trade and organized crime within this organization.
When asked what his motives were for coming forward he replied, “I want justice to be served because we killed many people. I have a conscience. Even up to now, many are still being killed.”
If true this would explain why Duterte wants to go after drug offenders/users because they might rat him out.
UN human rights experts have asked the Philippines government to address extrajudicial killings of drug users in the country since August even going as far as saying that Duterte “lacks understanding of human rights.”
In response to the UN condemnation, Duterte has said he is considering taking the Philippines out of the UN, withdrawing from the ICC or International Criminal Court, and ending a major pact with the U.S. government.
The WikiLeaks and Snowden smears are getting more disingenuous by the day.
In the latest attack on what is without doubt the most significant media organization in the world—WikiLeaks—a far less consequential publisher—The Daily Kos—has managed to squeeze an entire article out of one Twitter rant by what they describe as a “quasi-official Anonymous Twitter account” – @YourAnonCentral, also known as YAC.
In doing so, The Daily Kos is the latest to demonstrate that there is nothing more intellectually insubstantial than the recent trend of quasi-journalists slapping together an entire quasi-article about someone having had a moan on Twitter.
Poorly-investigated and deficiently-sourced, their article fails to dig any deeper than the surface contents of the singular thread, trusting that it contains sufficient reference points that no one will invest the time or effort to look into the matter any further.
Unfortunately for them, we have.
The 25-tweet diatribe their article is based off can be read here and is dissected tweet by tweet at the bottom of this page. But first, let’s look a little deeper into the opinions and attitudes espoused by @YourAnonCentral, and give you the story that The Daily Kos didn’t.
YAC doesn’t just hate Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. He also has it in for Edward Snowden.
The animosity isn’t restricted to silly memes or playing favorites among whistleblowers. It extends to pronouncements that blatantly violate the basic principles and beliefs of the Anonymous movement.
The idea that an Anonymous account would be openly calling for the prosecution of a whistleblower and advocating that they be subjected to “law and punishment” with “no exceptions” is not only contrary to the ideological premise of the collective, but is frankly extreme in its audacity and hypocrisy.
For an account claiming to be a part of a movement whose members have been aggressively hunted by law enforcement agencies, to advocate throwing a whistleblower to the dogs, is flabbergasting.
But their vitriol doesn’t end there. Since July 2014, YAC has been waging an unrelenting smear campaign against the pillars of the activism community.
Major Anonymous accounts like @AnonymousVideo, tweeting content from Thomas Drake to YAC, go without amplification or acknowledgement.
Other old school Anonymous accounts like @AnonSwedeninfo get acidic responses from YAC…
Or are completely ignored when they attempt to share relevant content with them:
Sputnik News noted the disparity between the positions of @YourAnonNews and YAC, on Snowden:
YAC’s smears against Snowden are completely baseless. Even the most cursory knowledge of his revelations and activity easily dispels them. Take for example, the following tweet:
In their desperation to discredit him and hoping that any mud will stick, Snowden’s detractors routinely contradict each other’s narratives. While some deride him for having spoken out about NSA spying on Chinese university students while still in Hong Kong, YAC audaciously claim that he has never cared about non-US citizens. Yet by the time of their above tweet, in October 2015, Snowden had spoken via video conference in a whole host of non-US countries, about revelations specific to those citizens, including but not limited to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany and others.
Of course, if you wanted further proof of how far YAC have been barking up the wrong tree, you need only look at their own historical tweets, which disprove their more recent ones:
Time and time again, YAC stumbles over its own opinion and contradicts its own messaging. For example, they cast aspersions on radical leftists and Russian-based media organisations, despite having a long history of sharing information from precisely those sources.
At various times they accuse Snowden of being both aligned with US government and the Russians. Likewise, with WikiLeaks.
They accused WikiLeaks of being beholden to other foreign governments:
…yet make bizarre attempts to associate WikiLeaks staff with being pro-US government – specifically claiming that they have “ties to the US military and intelligence”:
The attempt to portray WikiLeaks as being an agent of the US military-industrial complex is followed by, three months later, a switch of course to complain that WikiLeaks only exposes US war crimes:
In aggregate, it seems that they don’t care who WikiLeaks or Snowden is or isn’t working for, they are only trying to cause the maximum possible damage to their reputations, as seen by the posting of skewed opinion polls such as the following, which do not provide any dissenting option.
Glenn Greenwald is another frequent victim of attempts to detract from those doing the most significant and visible work to circulate revelations from the Snowden archives.
Accusations that The Intercept has not released enough documents, or with the speed that many would like, are commonplace. However, YAC chose the precise day that Greenwald and The Intercept had just come out with further major revelations, in order to attack them about it. Ultimately serving as a distraction from the information that had just hit the public arena.
Rather than analyzing and amplifying the documents that they claimed to be so eager to see released, YAC just tore chunks out of those doing the actual work instead.
Things didn’t always used to be this way. A trip down memory lane reveals that at a certain point, there was a seismic shift in YAC’s position.
Going back through YAC’s tweets in reverse-chronological order, there was a clear delineation between the original stances of the account, with its reversed positions and open hostility.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet the old YAC:
So what happened? How did YAC go from an account covering Occupy-related media and sharing pro-whistleblower content and leaks, in neatly laid out well-sourced tweets, to what appears to be an angry and aggressively anti-Snowden/WikiLeaks admin?
In the course of investigating this story I discovered the below tweet from fellow ex-Occupier and WRC journalist, Cassandra Fairbanks.
Suddenly, it all clicked. The concise news-style presentation of the early YAC tweets is likely attributable to Cassandra’s efforts. I reached out to her and asked for her take on what happened.
We Are Change: “Cassandra, the @YourAnonCentral account shared a lot of great work throughout the Occupy movement and had a really effective tweet style with a focus on info-sharing, up until June of 2014. Since then it devolved into what appears to be one person’s endless rant against pillars of the activism world like Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks. Can you tell us how this occurred?”
Cassandra Fairbanks: “That’s about when I left YAC. I had been using it to promote WikiLeaks and Snowden stuff, but we had massive internal disagreements so I quit. The main person running the account was using it as a tool to promote the person they were dating (@georgieBC) who had personal issues with Wikileaks even though she had previously ran WikiLeaks Central, which was essentially a fan site.”
YAC’s anti-Snowden tweets have very little uptake and the threads routinely feature dissenting opinions by readers that are puzzled by the maliciousness on display. Likewise, the malevolent nature of the specific accusations leveled at WikiLeaks by YAC that were picked up by the Daily Kos, did not escape notice.
Tweets 1-2/25: YAC tweets at @Khannoiseur, an anti-Trump, anti-WikiLeaks journalist, that they find his conspiracy theory that Julian Assange is being blackmailed by Putin “fascinating and quite in line with reality” and “would like to touch on the subject, given that we have somewhat of an insight into the matter.”
Tweet 3/25: YAC describes Julian Assange as a “fascist ideologue“, without any reference or source.
Tweets 4-5/25: YAC says that the attributes commonly associated with WikiLeaks including supporting “human rights, gov’t transparency, and open government” are “not in line with Assange’s politics”.
YAC then sets about trying to ascribe those qualities to people who have ceased working for WikiLeaks in the past, in an attempt to effectively strip WikiLeaks of its identity.
Tweets 6-7/25: YAC claims that WikiLeaks ability to receive leaks was dependent upon someone who had departed the organization. YAC says “the software developer behind it (leak platform) left the project. We assume he is still writing software.”
The “software developer” in question may be Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who volunteered full-time for WikiLeaks in 2009. In this annotated transcript of the film “We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks,” an unauthorized biography by filmmaker Alex Gibney, WikiLeaks points out that
“…in 2007 WikiLeaks uncovered billions of dollars’ worth of corruption in Kenya, a leak that made front pages around the world, and is widely viewed to have changed the results of the Kenyan 2007 Presidential Election. In 2008 WikiLeaks defeated the largest private Swiss bank in US courts after revealing its Cayman Islands trusts, costing the bank hundreds of millions as it cancelled its scheduled US IPO. However these leaks pre-date Domscheit-Berg’s substantive involvement.”
If the leaks pre-date Domscheit-Berg’s involvement, the idea that Domscheit-Berg was the sole engineer of the WikiLeaks platform—or so crucial that his departure crippled the technological functioning of the organization—is counter-intuitive. Meaning that in fact, the claims made by YAC in these tweets are demonstrably false.
But in fact, they are worse than merely slanders of WikiLeaks. They are an attempt to form a revisionist history that seeks to raise the profile of someone—Domscheit-Berg—who was not merely a disgruntled former volunteer. He was without doubt, a saboteur.
“I gave WikiLeaks some documents detailing proof of torture and government abuse of a Latin America country. The documents were only in hard copy. I entrusted those valuable documents – the only copy available – to Wikileaks because of the expertise of the people running it, their procedures and the mechanisms they used to maximize impact when published. I did not intend to give such material to Mr. Domscheit-Berg personally, as was made clear to him by me at the time. My intention was to give it to the platform I trusted and contributed to; to WikiLeaks. The material has not been published and I am disturbed to read public statements by Mr. Domscheit-Berg in which he states that he has not returned such documents to WikiLeaks.” – Renata Avila
Avila describes being present at Domscheit-Berg’s home when he was toasting journalist Heather Brooke with champagne. Brooke later stated: ““one of [Assange’s] disaffected colleagues gave me a full set of the US diplomatic cables that Assange was planning to use in his next publication.”
These were, of course, files supplied to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning. Of Domscheit-Berg’s attitude towards Manning, Renata Avila notes:
“After the arrest of Bradley Manning became public, I asked Mr. Domscheit-Berg how I could help the young soldier, but he did not appear to be interested. He was on holiday. I sent him contact details of human rights workers I thought would be able to support Manning, which he said he forwarded on to someone else. He never followed it up. I was under the impression that he didn’t care or that someone else must have the situation well in hand. It was only after he was suspended from WikiLeaks that he became outspoken about Manning.” – Renata Avila
The comments section on Avila’s post is well worth reading, to begin to understand the full extent of the betrayals by Domscheit-Berg, referred to as DDB.
Tweets 8-9/25: YAC alleged that WikiLeaks “copied the publish everything leak platform” concept from Cryptome.org‘s John Young. Then YAC alleges that Cryptome “left” WikiLeaks but still adheres to the principle. According to Young, Cryptome curate their content and do not simply publish everything. Nor do they guarantee the authenticity of the documents they publish or offer any protection to their sources. According to the Wikipedia page for Cryptome, Young says their organisation does not believe in “context“, “verification, authentication” or “background“. Additionally, unlike WikiLeaks, they have complied with official requests for removal of content.
Cryptome has a long established history of obscuring events related to the security of their website with conflicting statements.
Given the massive disparities between the two organizations, not the least of which is their core modus operandi, it is hard to decipher precisely what it is YAC now accuse WikiLeaks of copying from them. The function of receiving documents? That’s what journalists do. Cryptome might have been an early influence for WikiLeaks but they did not invent journalism.
So after joining WikiLeaks in 2006, publicly trashing it in 2007, printing its internal communications and then doing mainstream media interviews about the project he had abandoned after discovering years later that it had become successful regardless, John Young is a WikiLeaks “member”, “insider”, “devotee” and “critic”. Take from that what you will.
This is, of course, the same John Young who claimed to Vocative in July 2014 that Cryptome would be imminently publishing the Snowden documents that had been withheld from the public. He described the leak of the full archive as inevitable. It has yet to eventuate.
Tweets 10-11/25: These tweets are virtually meaningless. YAC says that WikiLeaks postures itself as anti-war and then attributes that stance to Chelsea Manning. Then anomalously states that Chelsea still holds these beliefs. As if WikiLeaks prior to 2010 wasn’t anti-war, when it clearly was, or as if WikiLeaks is somehow pro-war. The assertion is such a lame duck that it’s not even worth taking the time to debunk. Look at what they were releasing prior to 2010, and what they have since, and the writing is on the wall.
Tweets 12-13/25: YAC’s attempts to insinuate that WikiLeaks is usurping the achievements of others, with a complete lack of context, continues. Swiftly moving on to Iceland, invoking the terms ‘open government‘ and ‘transparency‘ then raising the IMMI (Icelandic Modern Media Initiative), brainchild of Iceland’s Pirate Party leader Birgitta Jonsdottir. What YAC fails to mention is how events in Iceland came to the head that they did. The tide of public dissent that the Pirate Party was able to ride to prominence came about from leaks published by WikiLeaks, exposing gross corruption on the part of Icelandic bankers.
Their supposition that WikiLeaks was not involved in IMMI at a fundamental level is also factually incorrect. In the original video of Birgitta and Julian Assange speaking about IMMI at the 2010 Logan Symposium, the truth couldn’t be any more clear, or any more different than YAC portrayed it.
“The reason why I am here is that early this year me and a group of people including WikiLeaks started to work on a proposal for the Icelandic Parliament tasking the Icelandic government to create sort of a reversal ideology of a tax haven, where they pick good legislation around the world to create secrecy, we want to pick the best possible legislation from around the world to create transparency…
…when I heard this idea, originally the idea about IMMI was introduced by Julian Assange and Daniel Schmitt at a conference in Iceland in December last year, where I was also speaking. Coming from a background of being an activist, a journalist and a writer and a pioneer on the internet, I immediately understood the importance of this.” – Birgitta Jonsdottir
The video is well worth the watch so here it is:
Tweets 14-16/25: YAC says that WikiLeaks only “supported human rights, horizontal governance and was a megaphone for those at risk… based on their (@wikileaks) Twitter feed from 2010 to 2012. News tweeted by @Wikileaks then was based on work of @GeorgieBC.” Once again, this is a ridiculous statement. WikiLeaks interest in human rights both pre and post dates Georgie’s admittedly excellent work on @WLCentral, which for a time was a brilliant and regularly lauded contribution to the WikiLeaks platform.
WikiLeaks’ most significant achievement in acting as “a megaphone for those at risk” has been in the establishment and undertakings of the Courage Foundation, which is a unique, groundbreaking organization acting to defend, promote and represent the best interests of some of the world’s most high-risk, high-profile and fiercely persecuted whistleblowers and journalists. Courage was established long after WLCentral was discontinued.
Therefore the idea that their interest in either of the aforementioned principles was somehow bestowed upon them by a departed third party is frankly, disingenuous.
With regards to horizontal governance, it is true that GeorgieBC has done some really innovative, thorough and challenging thinking and writing on that topic and made many proposals through her personal blog and elsewhere. However, YAC is clearly no expert on how WikiLeaks currently operates or is structured behind the scenes.
The proof is in the pudding really and whatever WikiLeaks are doing, they are doing it right. The stats are long since in – they were the most impactful and significant media organisation on social media during the recent U.S. election. They sport an unblemished record of relentless publishing. It is simply sour grapes to deny them the credit they are due for having achieved so much, in such dire and drastic circumstances as having intelligence agencies, particularly those of the West, set against their success and continued livelihood at every turn. Yet they have triumphed regardless.
Tweets 17-18/25: YAC bizarrely suggests that Jeremy Hammond having leaked the GIFiles from Stratfor was the sum total of WikiLeaks work against ‘corporate tyranny’. But their established record of publishing huge leaks on (not to mention confronting in court and winning against) corporates goes back to 2007 and stretches to the current day. As a campaigner against the TPPA I can tell you that WikiLeaks consistent publishing and analysis of the TPPA, TISA and TTIP texts was hugely consequential in helping to grow the movements against those ‘trade’ agreements – which were not trade agreements at all, but corporate coup d’etat undermining national sovereignty for the benefit of the bottom lines of giant transnational conglomerates – and that is just the most recent example. To swing the pendulum all the way back, it was 2007-2008 when WikiLeaks first took on banks and won.
Tweet 19/25: “People thought @Wikileaks wanted to support the weak against the powerful. That was #Anonymous, not Julian Assange.” What else is there to do but shake one’s head at this inanity? Compared to the entire might of the Western Empire and its military-industrial complex, WikiLeaks *was* the weak. They are quite literally David vs Goliath and they have delivered time and time again. The false dichotomy between Anonymous and Julian Assange is a deliberate attempt at divide and conquer. The vast majority of Anonymous supports WikiLeaks and Assange and always has. Their genesis is from the same community. They cannot be separated just by someone with a Twitter account who desperately hopes they can be. When Assange’s internet was cut by Ecuador in 2016, what happened? Vast swathes of the connectivity of the East Coast of America (and elsewhere) was taken down in retaliation. No matter how much B.S. YAC circulates to the contrary, YAC cannot break solidarity between hackers just because they wish it were so.
Tweet 20-25/25: Bereft of any actual evidence and not having posted a single source link in the entire 25-tweet diatribe, YAC resorts to ad hominems. Assange is this, Assange is that. It is well known that The WikiLeaks Party was infiltrated, just as its parent organisation had been repeatedly in the past, and then smeared for supporting neo-Nazis, just as Anonymous itself was once smeared as supporting neo-Nazis. Just as Occupy was smeared as supporting neo-Nazis, just as any significant activism movement or group supporting any kind of radical change is hauled into the exact same smear because it is a known tactic of the state to do so. According to YAC, somehow Julian’s support of the First Amendment of the US Constitution is also bad – despite Birgitta Jonsdottir having expressed exactly the same admiration for it in the above video.
“None of the people who have ever been involved in @Wikileaks have changed…”
Well, the people involved in @YourAnonCentral have definitely changed and it sure as hell wasn’t an improvement.
We Are Change investigative reporter Suzie Dawson is one of the most accomplished independent New Zealand journalists on the international stage. She specialises in writing about whistleblowers, intelligence agencies and technology.
A U.S. Air Force commander has proclaimed that space weapons can now be used against ISIS—and no, this is not science fiction. This type of technology has been developed, in secret, for years. In this article, we will take a look at what some of these weapons might be, and what they can be used for, as well as some history about space weapons.
“If we want to be more agile then the reality is we are going to have to push decision authority down to some lower levels in certain areas the big question that we’ve got to wrestle with … is the authorities to operate in cyber and space,” General David Goldfein, the Air Force chief of staff, told USA TODAY.
Although, General Goldfein did not go into detail citing that the material is classified, there is enough data out on the internet to speculate what weapons could be used against the Islamic state.
But before we dive deep into the dark SAP (special access program) world of secret space weapons, here is a history lesson:
Let’s first look at a project known as Horizon, which was supposedly just a drawn up plan in the 1960’s that was our first canceled project in a long list of projects that were canceled, that seemingly depict the blueprints for a Secret Space Program base on the moon.
Next, we have the MOL (Manned Orbiting Laboratory) which is Cigar shaped. The MOL would serve as a headquarters in space, but this project also seemed to end up in the shredder.
Then there is the air force’s X-20 Dyna-Soar space plane, which was also designed in the 1960s and was allegedly scrapped for metal.
Finally, there is a quote by Ronald Regan in his diary that makes only a little more sense when compared with a 1989, New York Times article which reported that the Air Force had shut down another planned manned space program, with a staff of 32 astronauts and a space shuttle launching facility in Colorado.
Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) said years prior, “there exist a shadow government with its own air force its own navy, its own funding mechanism and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest-free from checks and balances and the law itself.”
Reagan said, “space truly is the last frontier and some of the developments there in astronomy etc. are like science fiction, except they are real. I learned that our shuttle capacity is such that we could orbit 300 people.”
Modern space shuttles only carry eight Passengers Maximum, so 32 or 300 would be an accomplishment indeed.
Ronald Reagan is also the same president who signed the SDI or “Starwars Defense Initiative” and gave his famous speech about how if the earth was invaded by a hostile force, we would all have to forget our differences and come together in peace.
There is also a space weapons agreement that a congressman proposed called the “Space Preservation Treaty” in 2005, that states that countries won’t seek to weaponize space. However, Obama recently violated this agreement under the 2017 NDAA Act, and no one noticed the legislation he signed is essentially the Starwars Defense Initiative II that his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, signed calling for a space-based missile system.
In fact, in WikiLeaks’ John Podesta emails, an email from the former astronaut, and sixth to walk on the moon, Edgar Mitchell talks about this treaty with Podesta.
So Obama is essentially setting the stage for President Donald Trump to use these capabilities but just what are the types of space weapons that can be used against ISIS and U.S. adversaries?
The rod of god is one, the TR3B NSA/DoD/USAF Space command hyper velocity craft is another. It is for surveillance purposes, as the craft has the ability to cloak, like this soldier running in front of a tank. Yes, this technology exists, and this is real. It works through bending light around an object.
ROD OF GOD: What is the Rod Of God? The rod of god is a part of the direct energy weapon family; it’s a kinetic energy weapon.
The rods are directed munitions, the higher you are (the greater your distance from the planet), the greater the kinetic energy you have.
In 2004, published in popular science, Eric Adams writes:
“A pair of satellites orbiting several hundred miles above the Earth would serve as a weapons system. One functions as the targeting and communications platform while the other carries numerous tungsten rods–up to 20 feet in length and a foot in diameter–that it can drop on targets with less than 15 minutes’ notice. When instructed from the ground, the targeting satellite commands its partner to drop one of its darts. The guided rods enter the atmosphere, protected by a thermal coating, traveling at 36,000 feet per second–comparable to the speed of a meteor. The result: complete devastation of the target, even if it’s buried deep underground. The two-platform configuration permits the weapon to be “reloaded” by just launching a new set of rods, rather than replacing the entire system.”
The concept of developing kinetic-energy weapons has been around ever since the RAND Corporation proposed placing rods on tips of ICBMs in the 1950s. Though the Pentagon won’t say how far along the research is, or even confirm that any efforts exist, citing those details are classified. The “U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan,” published by the Air Force in November 2003, references “hypervelocity rod bundles” in its outline of future space-based weapons, and in 2002, another report from RAND, “Space Weapons, Earth Wars,” talks about the effectiveness of such a weapon.
In 2015, natural news reported that the several explosions in Tianjin, China were due to the rod of god, largely due to the Chinese cyber attacks and currency devaluation that took place in 2015.
In 2011, a few years prior, The New York Timesreported that the Defense Department was working up new strategies to counter cyber attacks, including, as the paper reported, “a military response,” because they would soon consider cyber attacks as an act of war. In 2015, the New York Times followed up with a report on “The Rods From God.”
When you first start researching space weapons one man comes up a lot in your searches, and that man is Edgar Fouche.
Whistleblower Master Sergeant Edgar Fouche (deceased) worked as an avionics engineer for the U.S. Air Force for over 20 years, and in 1998, published details of an aerial vehicle known as the TR3B that he claims was developed in secret by the N.S.A. and U.S.A.F.
The performance characteristics of this vehicle are mind-boggling, using field propulsion to reduce the weight of the craft, plasma, and traveling faster than 30x the earth’s gravity at mac 9 (6,900 mph) vertically or horizontally.
Is this possible? Let’s first answer if the speed is achievable: recently warp drive technology like this became public and the Chinese tested the leaked EM-drive patent and manufactured the device, so the technology is indeed operational and NASA has confirmed too that it works. An astrophysicist claimed that we would have it within 100 years while another scientist in Britain Roger Shawyerclaimed he figured out the secret and we could reach the moon in four hours. Russia has made a similar claim, but with a nuclear-fission engine, claiming that the engine can provide a fast way to get to mars in 6 weeks.
Former Lockheed Martin Skunkworks Senior Scientist Boyd Bushman came out in 2012, on his deathbed, about Antigravity Propulsion Devices and how they tie into what is known as “Singularity,” which allow you to move anywhere within the universe instantaneously. He further explained how magnetics worked doing a magnet experiment with a copper pipe and aluminum pipe.
Is there any video evidence of such an anti-gravity craft being used? In Canada, released through a FOIA request, there is a video of the Avrocar, which was the U.S. army’s top secret flying saucer, tested between 1952-1961. Although the Avrocar only reached hovering heights of three feet and speeds of 30 knots. This shows that levitation technology was actively being developed in the 1950s-60s, so it’s believed to be a prototype of the hovering craft, but it’s not the only known prototype. Another project, the supersonic flying saucer, was declassified and was worked on in the 1950s.
Fouche says to the deniers in the video below that, “if you think these rumors are far-fetched look at the YB49 flown in 1948 and the XB70 flown in 1964, then look at the SR-74 and SR-75 Aurora which has been spotted numerous times you say that the government can’t keep a secret? Boy, you are wrong.”
Fouche says that the “SR-74 and SR-75 or Aurora” were both “replacements for the SR-71 blackbird spy plane.”
The SR-71 blackbird was developed in 1964, Fouche alleges that its replacement was created in the 1990’s almost two decades later. Before the SR-71 in 1962, there was another plane as mentioned above, the X-20 Dyna-Soar, which literally says space plane on the air forces website. Do you really think that was the air force’s last attempt at a space vehicle?
Today the air force space command, separate from the air force, admittedly has the X-37B an unmanned space-craft that has had numerous unknown missions into space.
With this technology, combined with the rod of god, it would bring a whole new edge to the battlefield against ISIS and adversaries in general.