Are the Western so-called leaders [does even one exist?] prepared to continue to merely speculate, aid, abet, assist, and approve of the Iranian regime has already built a nuclear weapon? Are they going to wait until one or more missiles with nuclear warheads are launched toward Israel, another nation, before exclaiming, “Gee, gosh, willkers! How did they get the bomb!?”

I have lived almost 72 years on this earth. I have witnessed anemic, weak, complicit, appeasing leadership and thought it reprehensible. Disgusting. They should be removed! But any such thought regarding a past world leader pales compared to what is offered up to the people of the nations of the world currently.

There is one true strong leader in the world today. Only one. Benjamin Netanyahu.

America has had some of the weakest, anemic, ignorant passive, and appeasing leaders in the White House and Congress over the past two-plus decades. With only one president exhibiting strength. Ability to truly lead. And of the 435 so-called representatives in the U.S. Congress we can count on one hand those who are statesmen, worth their salt. Capable. Not merely in it, there, for themselves and to amass personal wealth. It is impossible to see by the fruit they bear that they are there to serve we the people.

America has created the Iranian situation. Not only in financing Iran so they could create their own Manhattan Project and become a nuclear weapons power — unlike becoming a nuclear energy power as the great liar Barack Hussein Obama tried to sell to the people — America has made the present Iranian regime possible. Not only in financing their nuclear weapons development and capabilities but in installing the regime. Anyone remember the Iranian situation in January of 1979?

A situation America and the West created.

Do about five minutes of history study.

It’s all connected. All related.

It’s also all Biblical. Not merely political. Politics is merely a small branch grafted into the tree of spiritual warfare.

4.6 earthquakes are created by dropping a tray of coffee cups on the floor or a 38-car pile-up on an Iranian highway.

Wait, wait, wait, aid the enemy, lie, lie, lie some more, keep aiding the enemy, keep listening to the darkness, being the darkness, wait, wait wait some more…appease to please the enemy.

And then act all surprised when it all hits the fan.

How blind, lost, ignorant, and dumb can they be?

But then, they all are not — and much of this is done with intent. With purpose.

Time to wise up and come to sense, objectivity, critical thinking, and logic — all this does not come together from happenstance.

There is no such thing as a coincidence.

Read on…

Ken Pullen, Tuesday, October 8th, 2024

 

 

Iranian Underground Nuclear Test Allegedly Caused Earthquake of 4.6 on the Richter Scale

 

October 6, 2024

By Pamela Geller

Reprinted from Geller Report

 

Seventh-century savages playing with twentieth-century weapons of mass destruction. They should’ve been stopped long ago. They must be stopped now. Immediately.

Obama/Biden, Harris/Biden funded this.

 

According to foreign reports, there are indications that last night Iran carried out an underground nuclear test that caused an earthquake in certain areas of Iran.
From  AI

The topic you’re referring to involves the Uranium One deal, which has been at the center of numerous discussions and controversies, especially concerning the percentage of U.S. uranium output that was potentially under influence or control related to this transaction. Here’s a balanced look based on the information available up to October 2024:

– **Uranium One Deal**: This deal involved the sale of Uranium One, a Canadian company with mining operations in the U.S., to Rosatom, Russia’s state-owned atomic energy corporation. The transaction required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State at the time, served as one member among several other high-ranking government officials.

– **Percentage of U.S. Uranium**: The often cited figure related to this deal is that it gave Russia control over 20% of U.S. uranium production capacity. However, this figure needs clarification:

– **Production vs. Reserves**: Initially, discussions around the deal mentioned this 20% figure in terms of “uranium reserves.” However, later clarifications, including from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, suggested this might be closer to 10% of U.S. uranium production capacity.

– **Control vs. Ownership**: It’s crucial to note that while Uranium One’s assets were sold to Rosatom, the actual control over uranium in the U.S. remains under stringent U.S. regulations. The deal did not allow for the physical export of uranium without U.S. approval, and the uranium mined remained subject to U.S. laws and strategic interests.

– **Controversy and Investigations**: The deal has been scrutinized for potential conflicts of interest due to donations to the Clinton Foundation from individuals linked to Uranium One around the time of the deal. However, investigations and analyses, including from FactCheck.org and PolitiFact, have not conclusively proven a direct quid pro quo involving Hillary Clinton or the sale directly leading to changes in U.S. uranium policy or security.

– **Public and Political Perception**: Despite the lack of direct evidence of wrongdoing, the deal has remained controversial, with critics arguing it symbolizes broader issues of foreign influence in American politics or lax oversight over strategic assets. Conversely, supporters or defenders of the deal point out that it was one of many deals reviewed by CFIUS under multiple administrations, and uranium sales or leases to foreign entities are not uncommon, being tightly regulated.

– **Impact on U.S. Uranium Industry**: The broader impact of such deals, including the Megatons to Megawatts Program, has led to discussions on U.S. dependency on foreign uranium, including from Russia, for its nuclear power plants, highlighting a strategic vulnerability in energy security.

In summary, while the deal did involve a significant portion of U.S. uranium production capacity, the exact influence or control over actual uranium output or strategic reserves needs to be understood within the framework of U.S. regulations and not as a straightforward sale of physical assets or control over uranium usage without oversight. The controversy largely stems from political interpretations and the optics of the situation rather than confirmed illegal activities or direct policy changes resulting from the transaction.