We are repeatedly scolded for not agreeing to the opinion that “Islam is a peaceful religion,” that “the Islamic Radical Terrorists don’t represent true Islam” and so on and so forth.  Except when it comes to Israel, Islam proves it is not a religion of peace, but a religion of pure unadulterated terrorism.  Take, for instance, the Islamic reactions to President Trump’s declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.  Virtually every Islamic or Arab leader’s reaction is laced with threats of extreme violence against anything and everybody.  The Islamic reaction to President Trump’s “Jerusalem is Israel’s capital” declaration exposes the true face of Islam as a religion of extreme violent terrorism.

Arutz Sheva reported that “Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, the supreme Islamic institution of Sunni Muslims, on Tuesday warned that “the gates of hell” will open if the United States goes through with plans to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move its embassy to Jerusalem.”  So, here you have the “Grand Imam” of the “supreme Islamic institution of the Sunni Muslims” proclaiming a clear grotesquely violent terroristic threat against everyone and  everybody if Jerusalem is declared Israel’s capital.  This is the Grand Imam of Egypt, a country that is supposedly at peace with Israel!

One would think the Grand Imam would have been more concerned about the hundreds of Sufi Muslims who were just murdered in the name of Sunni Islam in the northern Sinai a week or so ago.  One would have thought the Grand Imam would have wanted to use this Trump Jerusalem Declaration moment to show how peaceful and non-violent Islam was so as to set a good example for all Muslims.  But no, the Grand Imam shows he is just as much a bloodthirsty Muslim terrorist as the Muslim terrorists that murdered over 300 praying Muslims in a mosque.

Can anyone claim the Grand Imam doesn’t represent mainstream Islam?

Can anyone claim the Grand Imam doesn’t directly represent Islam itself?

Can anyone claim the Grand Imam doesn’t really understand Islam or the Koran?

All this proves is that we were fed a steady pablum of lies by President Obama, and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster that ISIS and al Qaeda and all of other Islamic terrorists “aren’t following Islam,” and that “we are not at war with Islam.”  The Islamic reaction to Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration proves that al Qaeda and ISIS are not the exceptions of Islam, but its central pillar.  It proves that peaceful Muslims are an imaginary exception that doesn’t exist.

Unfortunately, the Islamic hysterically violent and extreme reactions to Trump’s declaration prove we are at war with all of Islam.  When it comes to Islamic leaders, it appears incontrovertible that the lunatic terrorists are in control of the Islamic asylum.

But, most of all, the Islamic reactions to Trump’s Jerusalem Declaration prove the Two-State solution is, has been, and always will be a total fraud and lie from the start.  Islam will never allow any Palestinian leader to share any part of Jerusalem with Israel.  Any Palestinian Arab leader who compromised on any part of Jerusalem would have “Betrayed Islam” and quickly become a dead Palestinian leader, just as Sadat became a dead Egyptian leader.

Forget the katyusha rockets from a Palestinian Arab ‘West Bank’ State, forget that entity stealing all of Israel’s water, forget Iran taking over the ‘West Bank’, and forget the millions of Palestinian Arabs pouring into the ‘West Bank’, pushing to pour into pre-1967 Israel.  Israel’s presence in any part of Jerusalem, or any part of the Muslim Wakf of the Levant, would always have been the raison d’etre of th Muslim world to  continue satisfying its blood lust to murder every Israeli west of the Jordan River.

“The Man in The High Castle” is the name of a Phillip Dick dystopian alt-history novel based on the “what if” idea that in World War II Hitler obtains nuclear power first and uses it to destroy several American and British cities to force an American surrender.  The “book” has become more widely known because Amazon has made a TV series very loosely based on it.  But the book presents us with a very interesting theoretical problem that shines a bright light on the questions we face regarding the current North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs.

The question raised by the book is: To what lengths should the allies have gone to stop Hitler from acquiring a nuclear stockpile? Specifically, would the Allies have used nuclear weapons to pre-empt a Nazi nuke?

The question of today is: If the only real US military option available to President Trump that offers the possibility of a quick immediate American victory without millions of South Korean casualties and tens of thousands of American casualties is to pre-empt North Korea by nuking North Korea first, is this pre-emption a a legitimate and necessary strategy?

The second question brings us back to the first question raised about the book describing the possibility of Adolph Hitler and his Third Reich being armed with a nuclear arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  What should FDR and/or Winston Churchill have done in the 30’s and in the midst of World War II if Hitler would have been suspected to be on the cusp of developing a nuclear bomb?  Would America have blithely allowed the “rational actor” Hitler to acquire nukes based on the deterrent theory of “Mutually Assured Destruction” – or should we say MAD?

Here the question breaks down to two time-period questions: The first is what if Hitler had developed the nuke before WWII began, and the second is what if Hitler had developed the nuke after WWII began.

Before Hitler invaded Poland and war was declared by England and France against Germany, Hitler was viewed by Europe and England as a “rational actor.”  To Chamberlain, Hitler was such a “rational actor” that Chamberlain forcibly surrendered Czechoslovakia to Hitler over President Benes’ strident objections for the chimera of “Peace in Our Time.”  Stalin was equally taken in by Hitler’s “rationality” as proven by Stalin’s agreeing to destroy Poland along with Hitler, while believing that no one, including Hitler, would rationally invade the Soviet Union for another decade.  Both Chamberlain’s and Stalin’s “rational actor” conclusions were ultimately found to have been grievous, catastrophic errors.

Before WWII began, had Hitler been deemed by the Allies a proponent of MAD theory, one would have to conclude that, before the war, the Allies would have lived with it and done absolutely nothing to definitively stop Hitler from acquiring nukes.  Can anyone imagine what Hitler would have done to the world if he and his Nazis had actually come to possess WMD before World War II broke out?  It is entirely fair to conclude that before the war started, the Allies would still have done absolutely nothing to stop him.  They certainly would not have nuked Nazi Germany to stop Hitler’s acquiring a WMD arsenal.  And the Allies failure to stop, at any and all cost, Hitler’s acquisition of nukes before the war started would have been the most irreversibly catastrophic decision that the world ever made – that is, up to the present North Korea and Iran issue.

Now, let’s ask what the Allies would have done if Hitler was on the cusp of developing a nuclear arsenal after World War II began.  And, for the sake of analogy, let’s assume the Allies had already developed a nuclear bomb.  If Churchill had a nuclear bomb, and the Luftwaffe was burning London to a crisp, does anyone think Churchill wouldn’t have used his WMD to stop Hitler even if Hitler wasn’t developing nuclear weapons?  Of course, Churchill would have nuked Nazi Germany to stop the blitz. and if Churchill knew Hitler was actually developing a nuke, there is no question Churchill and President Roosevelt would have pre-emptively nuked Hitler’s Nazi Germany to stop Hitler form acquiring a bomb.  Truman nuked Japan merely to avoid one million US casualties in attacking the Japanese mainland.  He surely would have used nuclear power to stop the threat to the US Homeland.

Which brings us squarely back to the questions of North Korea and Iran. Is Kim Jong-un more or less of a “rational actor” than Hitler was? Two months ago, Yong Suk Lee, deputy assistant director of the CIA’s Korea Mission Center, during a debate on escalating tensions, stated that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un is not crazy, but a “rational actor” focused on regime survival. He went on to say, “Waking up one morning and deciding he wants to nuke Los Angeles is not something Kim Jong-un is likely to do. He wants to rule for a long time and die peacefully in his own bed.” President Trump aside, the CIA appears to believe Kim Jong-un is a “rational actor” for MAD theory. And under the Deep State’s mad MAD theory, if you’re a “rational actor,” you can have a nuclear arsenal. And, if allowing Hitler to have nukes would have been insane, allowing Kim Jong-un to have nukes is even more insane.

WMD have become more dangerous. North Korea could trump MAD theory and asymmetrically, but “rationally”, use a tactical EMP nuke to paralyze the Korean peninsula and capture 30,000 US POWs that would effectively prevent any US nuclear retaliation. Kim Jong-un would have 30,000 living bargaining chips under which he would demand an American surrender of the entire Korean peninsula. Secondly, it’s entirely unclear how China or Russia could use North Korea as a nuclear proxy by promising the North a nuclear umbrella in the event of a nuclear war with America.

Hence, in the case of North Korea, while America should use nukes to pre-empt North Korea’s plans, it is not likely America will. It appears that President Trump will likely ultimately do nothing to stop North Korea because all the other military options are “ugly” and “unthinkable.”

In the Iranian case, the mad Ayatollahs in Tehran make Kim Jong-un look almost rational. However, this will not stop the same CIA analysts from likely still finding Iran to qualify as a “rational actor” for MAD purposes. And, therefore, it’s even more doubtful that the CIA will ever sanction America’s using a pre-emptive nuke strike to de-nuclearize Iran. The prognosis, therefore, on the Iranian nuclear front is not a good one.

Unless the American security establishment rationally discards its mad MAD theoriy of the “rational actor,” we would do well to bring those old bomb shelters up to date.

The Preface:

While Federal investigations may have trouble finding specific quid-pro-quos in Russia’s bribing Hillary Clinton, it is now clear that all the key high level Obama administration officials(especially Clinton) knew, as early as 2009, that the Russian government entity ROSATOM’s subsidiaries were actively committing a vast criminal “nuclear kickback” conspiracy in the United States.

New reports have raised legitimate questions about the clear failure of the Obama Administration to inform the CFIUS Federal governmental board, the body that approved the 2010 UraniumOne sale to a Russian controlled corporation, of the Russian “nuclear kickback” case.  However, the more dramatic failure of the Obama Administration was its purposeful neglect in informing Congress of the ROSATOM’s “nuclear kickback” crimes during the ratification hearings for the 2010-11 Russian-American New START nuclear arms treaty.

In effect, Putin bribed Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, in a 2-for-1 corruption scandal.  He bought the UraniumOne approval and the New START Treaty ratification with the same Clinton Foundation bribe.  The problem for the all former high level national security Obama Administration officials is that under 18 U.S.C. 1505 it is a federal felony to obstruct or impede either a Congressional “inquiry or investigation” or a “pending proceeding” before a “federal department” due to corruption. Therefore, the Obama Administration’s 2009 failure to properly and fully inform the Senate, and the CFIUS board of ROSATOM’s criminal enterprise in the United States is a big, severe felony crime.

The Factual Background:

There is currently ample open-source evidence to conclude that all the key National Security officials in the Obama Administration (especially Sec of State Clinton) knew as early as 2009 that Vadm Mikerin, a Russian national, and his “higher officials” Moscow backers, were engaged in a vast criminal conspiracy relating to “nuclear kickbacks” and felony violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices act.  Mikerin was a big-wig in ROSATOM.  In 2015, Mikerin pled guilty to the “criminal money laundering conspiracy involving violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” and was sent to Federal Prison for 4 years.

According to its website, ROSATOM is the Russian  “State Atomic Energy Corporation.”   The ROSATOM webite continues to state, “ROSATOM is a proponent of the uniform national policy and best management practices in nuclear power utilization, the nuclear weapons industry, and nuclear safety.”

Did you get that?  ROSATOM a “proponent of the uniform national policy” of the Russian “nuclear weapons industry.”  In the United States, Mikerin set up and ran Tenam which was a subsidiary of Tenex ROSATOM’s foreign trade arm.  So, in 2009 and 2010, Sec. of State Clinton and the entire Obama national security team intentionally and knowingly withheld time-sensitive national security information about the Russian key nuclear-arms corporation while the UraniumOne and New Start treaty were being evaluated by the United States Senate and CFIUS board.

The “Obstruction of Congress” Statute:

18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Let’s analyze the statute:
I. Whoever

II. A. corruptly, or B. by threats or C. force, or D. by any threatening letter or communication

III. A. influences, B. obstructs, or  C. impedes or D. endeavors to  1. influence, 2. obstruct, or 3. impede

IV. A.1. the due and proper administration of the law under which  2. any pending proceeding is being had  3. before any department or agency of the United States, or

B. 1. the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by  a.  either House, orb. any committee of either House orc. any joint committee of the Congress

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years (not more than 8 years if the offense involves domestic or international terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

Additionally, for the definition of “corrupt” we need to look at the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), which criminalizes the corrupt promise or transfer of any thing of value to influence an official act of a federal official, a fraud on the United States, or the commission or omission of any act in violation of the official’s duty.

Brief Legal Analysis:

First, the CFIUS board evaluating the UraniumOne sale to the ROSATOM subsidiary was clearly “a pending proceeding” “being had before a department or agency of the United States.”

And, the US Senate’s and even the House of Representatives’ evaluation of the UraniumOne sale and especially of the ratification of the New Start Treaty were clearly a “due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry” “being had” by “either House, or any committee of either House.”

Secondly, the withholding of the information of  ROSATOM’s “nuclear kickback” conspiracy from both the CFIUS board and the Congress clearly “impeded,” and “obstructed” the “inquiry or investigation” of both the CFIUS board and Congress with respect to UraniumOne and the Congress with respect to the New START Treaty.

Thirdly, the Obama administration officials clearly “corruptly” engaged in these actions because , at a minimum, the intentional failure of the Obama national security officials to inform CFIUS and the Congress was, under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) “corrupt” because they were clearly actions where the “commission or omission of” the acts were “in violation of the official’s duty.”

Their “Defense” will only sink them further:

A likely defense by the Obama national security officials will be “we withheld the information because if we had divulged the information, CFIUS and Congress would never have let the UraniumOne sale or the New START Treaty pass.”  All they will have proven with this crazy defense is how relevant and vital the information was, and how critical it was to timely inform the FIUS and Congressional Committee’s of the information in the first place.

In short, and in conclusion, the Obama national security team should lawyer-up because they are looking at massive criminal claims coming their way.

A wise man once said, “Before starting a gunfight, count your bullets.”  So, with everyone talking about “military options” in North Korea, it’s instructive to ask what US military options exist.  Or more specifically, to find out the number of the only state-of-the-art conventional “bullets” that would really count in a military conflict with North Korea: Tomahawk missiles.

Then, let’s calculate how Tomahawk missiles stack up against America’s standard B61 nuclear bombs.  Former President Obama’s real “legacy” to the United States is that not only did he empower and enable a nuclear North Korea and soon-to-be nuclear Iran, he also insured the United States become conventionally powerless to militarily stop these nuclear-bomb rogues no matter who became president. As a result, it may very well be that President Trump has to use America’s nukes against North Korea or accept North Korea nuclear-tipped ICBMs ranged against the entire continental United States.

First, various open-source articles approximate America’s world-wide inventory of Tomahawk missiles to be about 4,000 missiles.  That might seem like a lot except America can’t use its entire arsenal of Tomahawks on North Korea, and leave all other defensive theaters without Tomahawks.  , Dedicating a sensible third of the inventory to a North Korea attack leaves only 1,300 missiles.  However, the sobering fact is the first day of the Gulf War, America used 900 Tomahawks and there’s no one who believes a conventional North Korean attack will be a 1 and a one-third day war.  So, on numbers alone, the Tomahawks are a bankrupt conventional option.

The compounded problem in addition  to the low inventory is the fact that despite the 59 Tomahawks President Trump sent against Assad after Assad’s chemical massacre, the attacked air base was up and running a couple of days later.  If the Syrian failure is any indication, Tomahawks will likely prove relatively worthless in really stopping the 12,000 pieces of North Korean tube artillery ranging from 122 to 170 millimeters and its 2,300 pieces of multiple rocket launch of over 107-millimeters.

Once the Tomahawk inventory is spent, the US will be forced to send manned bombers in, a scenario where the risks of capture of US POWs becomes astronomical.

Further, once a North Korean war drags on, the likelihood of Russian or Chinese pro-North intervention escalates, making a conventional attack with 1,300 or even 2,000 Tomahawks have a protracted and unclear end-game.

Now, let’s compare the TNT explosive warhead of the Tomahawk to TNT explosive impact of one B61 nuclear bomb.  A B61 nuclear bomb can be calibrated to produce varying explosive effect.  A B61 can produce 0.3 kilotons of TNT explosive effect on the low side, and can be ratcheted up to 340 kilotons of TNT on the high side.  The Little Boy Hiroshima nuclear bomb used against Japan in World War 2 had approximately 15 kilotons of TNT explosive effect.  So, a B61 programmed to 0.3 kilotons is basically about 1/50 of a Hiroshima-type bomb.  What’s so bad about a toy-nuke bomb that is 50 times weaker than Hiroshima’s?   And, using the high-end of 340 kilotons of TNT, that id about 23 Hiroshima bombs.  Now, that’s a serious bomb.

The real comparison of the B61 isn’t comparing its TNT equivalent to Hiroshima’s Little Boy, but its TNT comparison to the Tomahawk.  Thanks to Obama’s “Treaty” with Russia’s Putin, Obama de-nuclearized the Tomahawk, so the Tomahawk is purely a conventional missile.  And, the Tomahawk only carries 1000 pounds of TNT, and a tonis 2000 pounds.  So, each Tomahawk can only carry one-half of a ton or .5 tons of TNT.

Now, a “megaton” is 1000 tons. So, a B61 on the low-side is equal to 300 tons of TNT.  A simple calculation comparing the Tomahawk to the B61 means the one B61 is equivalent to 600 Tomahawks.  We dropped 900 Tomahawks on Iraq in one day. What’s the moral difference between dropping 900 Tomahawks in one day or one or two B61 – equivalents of 600 Tomahawks each – in one day.  Of course, we’re assuming the American engineers did their work and built bombs that have little nuclear residue.

And, on the high-side, one B61 producing 340 kilotons, or 340,000 tons of TNT is equal to 680,000 Tomahawks. Now, again, that’s a serious bomb.

But the B61’s real kicker advantage isn’t just the effectiveness of its TNT equivalent, but its cost. Each Tomahawk costs about 2 million dollars. So, as a reference, Trump’s 59 Tomahawk strike on Syria cost American taxpayers 120 million dollars, and the Assad airfield was up and running a few days later. Again, on the B61’s low-side of 0.3 kilotons or 300 tons, a B61 is worth $1.2 Billion dollars worth of the Tomahawk’s TNT. So, dollar for dollar a pair of B61s will wipe out North Korea at a fraction of the cost of the Tomahawk. On the B61’s high-side, the dollar equivalent would break the American bank at an astounding $1.360 trillion dollars worth of Tomahawk TNT.

Any war with North Korea had better be fast, cheap, and a decisive victory for America, or the American public will turn on President Trump. Looking at the options, it looks like either we use our power to win, or we will lose big-time to North Korea, and all the other nuclear armed-dictators coming down the road.