clandestine Critical Thinking cyber attacks defense discernment government is slavery Headline News Intelwars Jake Sullivan Mainstream media Manipulation Moscow offensive predictive programming. Joe Biden Skills wake up War

WH Is Preparing To Launch “Clandestine” Cyberattacks Against Russia: Biden Could Start A WAR

Joe Biden appears, for all intents and purposes, to be making an all-out effort to start a war. The White House is now preparing to launch “clandestine” cyberattacks against Russia. The only question remaining, is why the mainstream media is telling us about it.

Citing officials familiar with the operation, the New York Times said that a “series of clandestine actions” aimed at Russia is expected to begin over the next three weeks and that the cyberattacks are intended to be “evident” to President Vladimir Putin and Russia’s intelligence services, but not to the “wider world.”

The definition of clandestine is: kept secret or done secretively, especially because illicit. But this hardly seems secret when every mainstream media source is reporting on it. It is certainly illicit, however. So why are they telling the public intentionally making the use of the word “clandestine” a complete lie?

Predictive programming to set up a war with Russia perhaps, and manipulate the masses into accepting another war. That’s just speculation, but once you apply critical thinking to this story, it stinks in more ways than can be counted.

In an interview last week, Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, told the Times that he supported carrying out clandestine operations that would be “understood by the Russians, but may not be visible to the broader world,” arguing that such actions would force a “broad strategic discussion” with Moscow.

The allegedly imminent cyberattack has been framed as a retaliatory measure in response to the high-profile SolarWinds breach. The hack, first reported in December, provided backdoor access to a widely used network-management program distributed by the Texas-based SolarWinds company. The hackers were able to use the exploit to compromise the systems of more than 100 commercial firms around the world, as well as nine US government agencies. Described as one of the largest and most sophisticated cyberattacks. -RT

Of course, all of that is if you trust what comes out of the mouths of the ruling class and their hired propagandists in the mainstream media.

Pay attention, stay prepared, and polish those critical thinking and discernment skills.  We have to all start to wake up to what’s going on and at a faster rate unless we want to see our children living in invisible chains that will be impossible to break.

The post WH Is Preparing To Launch “Clandestine” Cyberattacks Against Russia: Biden Could Start A WAR first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

bill defense Intelwars NDAA trump Vetoes

President Trump vetoes massive defense bill, calling the legislation a ‘gift to China and Russia’

President Donald Trump vetoed the $740 billion 2021 National Defense Authorization Act on Wednesday, calling the legislation a “gift” to China and Russia.

The bill passed overwhelmingly in the Democrat-controlled House and Republican-led Senate earlier this month, and both chambers are expected to hold override votes on the measure next week.

What are the details?

In a statement announcing the move, Trump said that while his administration “recognizes the importance of the Act to our national security,” it “fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions.”

He called the NDAA in its current form “a ‘gift’ to China and Russia,” before adding, “No one has worked harder, or approved more money for the military, than I have — over $2 trillion. During my 4 years, with the support of many others, we have almost entirely rebuilt the United States military, which was totally depleted when I took office.”

The president went on to criticize Congress for refusing to include a provision in the NDAA that would repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a law that The Hill noted “provides a legal shield to tech companies like Twitter and Facebook.”

Trump had threatened to veto the NDAA a number of times including last week, when he tweeted, “I will Veto the Defense Bill, which will make China very unhappy. They love it. Must have Section 230 termination, protect our National Monuments and allow for removal of military from far away, and very unappreciative, lands. Thank you!”

The president has also spoken out against renaming military bases named after Confederates, which was included in the legislation.

The House passed the NDAA overwhelmingly on Dec. 8 with a vote tally of 335-78-1, and the Senate also passed it with a veto-proof majority of 84-13.

According to CSPAN, the “House will hold its veto override vote Monday [and] if it’s successful, [the] Senate will attempt to hold their vote Tuesday.” The Washington Post reported that if successful, it would be the first veto override of Trump’s presidency.

The outlet further explained:

Congress has until Jan. 3 at 11:59 a.m. — a Sunday — to override the veto and force the defense bill to become law. If they do nothing, it will expire along with the end of the two-year congressional session at noon that day.

cyberattack Cybersecurity defense homelandsecurity Intelwars nationalsecuritypolicy

Examining the US Cyber Budget

Jason Healey takes a detailed look at the US federal cybersecurity budget and reaches an important conclusion: the US keeps saying that we need to prioritize defense, but in fact we prioritize attack.

To its credit, this budget does reveal an overall growth in cybersecurity funding of about 5 percent above the fiscal 2019 estimate. However, federal cybersecurity spending on civilian departments like the departments of Homeland Security, State, Treasury and Justice is overshadowed by that going toward the military:

  • The Defense Department’s cyber-related budget is nearly 25 percent higher than the total going to all civilian departments, including the departments of Homeland Security, Treasury and Energy, which not only have to defend their own critical systems but also partner with critical infrastructure to help secure the energy, finance, transportation and health sectors ($9.6 billion compared to $7.8 billion).
  • The funds to support just the headquarters element­ — that is, not even the operational teams in facilities outside of headquarters — ­of U.S. Cyber Command are 33 percent higher than all the cyber-related funding to the State Department ($532 million compared to $400 million).

  • Just the increased funding to Defense was 30 percent higher than the total Homeland Security budget to improve the security of federal networks ($909 million compared to $694.1 million).

  • The Defense Department is budgeted two and a half times as much just for cyber operations as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which is nominally in charge of cybersecurity ($3.7 billion compared to $1.47 billion). In fact, the cyber operations budget is higher than the budgets for the CISA, the FBI and the Department of Justice’s National Security Division combined ($3.7 billion compared to $2.21 billion).

  • The Defense Department’s cyber operations have nearly 10 times the funding as the relevant Homeland Security defensive operational element, the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) ($3.7 billion compared to $371.4 million).

  • The U.S. government budgeted as much on military construction for cyber units as it did for the entirety of Homeland Security ($1.9 billion for each).

We cannot ignore what the money is telling us. The White House and National Cyber Strategy emphasize the need to protect the American people and our way of life, yet the budget does not reflect those values. Rather, the budget clearly shows that the Defense Department is the government’s main priority. Of course, the exact Defense numbers for how much is spent on offense are classified.

Badge defense Intelwars Mike o'meara New York Police

Watch: NY police union boss delivers fiery defense of the men and women who wear the badge

The president of New York state’s Police Benevolent Association unleashed against growing anti-cop narratives spun by activists, politicians and the media on Tuesday, lambasting critics and delivering an impassioned defense of the men and women who wear the badge.

What are the details?

During a news conference covered by Fox News, NYPBA boss Mike O’Meara stepped up to the microphones and began by saying that law enforcement officers have 375 million interactions with the public each year, with “overwhelmingly positive responses.”

“But I read in the papers all week — we all read in the papers — that in the black community, mothers are worried about their children getting home from school without being killed by a cop,” O’Meara said. “What world are we living in? That does not happen! It does not happen.”

O’Meara’s speech came several days into nationwide protests that often became violent over the death of George Floyd, a black man who died May 25 in police custody in Minneapolis after former police officer Derek Chauvin kneeled on Floyd’s neck for nearly nine minutes during detainment.

“I am not Derek Chauvin,” O’Meara’ continued.

Then, pointing to a crowd of law enforcement officers standing behind him, he added, “They are not him. He killed someone. We didn’t.”

Addressing the officers, O”Meara said, “Everybody’s trying to shame us. The legislators. The press. Everybody’s trying to shame us into being embarrassed about our profession.”

Pulling a badge out of his pocket, O’Meara told the audience, “This isn’t stained by someone in Minneapolis. It’s still got a shine on it. And so do theirs. So do theirs.

“Stop treating us like animals and thugs, and start treating us with some respect,” the NYPBA president continued. “We’ve been left out of the conversation. We’ve been vilified. It’s disgusting.”

He added, “Nobody talks about the all the police officers that were killed in the last week in the United States of America, and there were a number of them.”

O’Meara ended his speech by saying to his fellow officers, “You know what guys? I’m proud to be a cop, and I’m going to continue to be proud to be a cop until the day I retire.”

New York Police Union Boss ATTACKS The Media On Treating People Like ANIMALS

Chris Murphy Congress defense Foreign Policy Intelwars Iran Iranian foreign minister Javad ziraf Logan Act meeting murphy secret secret meeting Soleimani trump United States Ziraf

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy admits to meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. His explanation raises more questions than answers.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), hoping to quell speculation of wrongdoing, has formally responded to reports that he held a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Ziraf last week. But his explanation may raise more questions than it answers.

What’s the background?

The Federalist first reported Monday that Murphy and other Democratic senators held a “secret” meeting with Zarif last week at the annual Munich Security Conference. The news immediately began to circulate in the media and led to speculation as to whether Murphy had undermined U.S. foreign policy or even potentially violated the Logan Act by holding the meeting.

The Logan Act is a federal law that forbids unauthorized American citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in a dispute with the United States.

Tuesday morning, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo commented on the reports, seeming to scold Murphy and his Democratic colleagues for meeting with Zarif, who, Pompeo noted, is “the foreign minister of a country that killed an American on December 27” and “is the largest world sponsor of terror and the world’s largest sponsor of anti-Semitism.”

“If they met, I don’t know what they said. I hope they were reinforcing America’s foreign policy and not their own,” Pompeo added.

What is Sen. Murphy saying?

Murphy had not commented on the news until late Tuesday morning when he published a behind-the-scenes account of his trip on Medium, along with additional thoughts in a brief Twitter thread.

In the senator’s account, he said that he has “no delusions about Iran” and even characterizes Iran as an “enemy” and “adversary” of the United States. But he adds: “Discussions and negotiations are a way to ease tensions and reduce the chances for crisis,” before concluding that “Trump, of course, has no such interests.”

Then Murphy confirmed that the meeting happened and commented at length about its subject matter:

I plan to meet Zarif Saturday night in his hotel suite, and I have several goals for the meeting. First, I want to gauge whether he thinks the reprisals for the Soleimani assassination are over, and I want to make sure it is 100 percent clear to him that if any groups in Iraq that are affiliated with Iran attack the United States’ forces in Iraq, this will be perceived as an unacceptable escalation. Zarif may not have control over Iran’s military decisions, but he is the country’s chief diplomat and I want him to know that our government is united on this point.

Second, I want his help in Yemen. I tell him that I know it is not a coincidence that the recent uptick in attacks from Iranian-aligned Houthis in Yemen started right after the Soleimani killing. I tell him that Iran shouldn’t let the Houthis waste an opportunity for peace. Of course, he predictably tells me that it’s the Saudis, not the Houthis, that are holding up progress on peace talks …

… Lastly, I raise the issue of American prisoners held in Iran. He is ready for this inquiry — he already knows how much I care about releasing innocent Americans from custody — and we spend a few minutes discussing how the situation could be resolved.

A regular reading of Murphy’s account could plausibly characterize the conversation as a negotiation. In a follow-up tweet, Murphy used words like “urged,” “pressed,” and “pushed” in describing his stance toward Zarif at the meeting.

“Congress is a co-equal branch to the executive. We set foreign policy too,” he added in the Twitter thread, before acknowledging that “no one in Congress can negotiate with Zarif or carry official U.S. government messages.”

In a concluding statement about the meeting in his account on Medium, Murphy seems to backpedal a bit, saying he’s “just a rank and file U.S. Senator.”

I don’t know whether my visit with Zarif will make a difference. I’m not the President or the Secretary of State — I’m just a rank and file U.S. Senator. I cannot conduct diplomacy on behalf of the whole of the U.S. government, and I don’t pretend to be in a position to do so. But if Trump isn’t going to talk to Iran, then someone should. And Congress is a co-equal branch of government, responsible along with the Executive for setting foreign policy. A lack of dialogue leaves nations guessing about their enemy’s intentions, and guessing wrong can lead to catastrophic mistakes.

Yet, one potentially troublesome line from the statement is Murphy’s assertion that “if Trump isn’t going to talk to Iran, then someone should.”

Anything else?

Perhaps none of this would be a problem had Murphy been more forthright about the meeting and his motivations for holding it before it took place. TheBlaze reached out to Sen. Murphy’s office, requesting comments regarding allegations that the meeting was conducted in secret and that it potentially violated federal law.

In an email response, the senator’s communications director, Lia Albini, directed us to the Medium publication and Twitter thread cited above, but did not address the specific requests for comment.

So, in a follow-up email, TheBlaze pressed again for specific responses to whether the meeting was intended to be secretive and if the senator had thoughts about allegations that he violated the Logan Act. In addition, TheBlaze sought to know if other congressional colleagues were present with Murphy at the meeting.

Murphy’s team did not respond to our request for comment in time for publication.