The “October Surprise” Confrontation with Russia

By: Cliff Kincaid

The positive news of a Russian coronavirus vaccine, the first in the world, comes as a Russian opposition leader was poisoned with a chemical agent called Novichok that can be traced back to the old Soviet days. Clearly, the Russians have some expertise in the areas of germ warfare and bioterrorism.

Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State, says, “The United States is deeply concerned about reported preliminary conclusions from German medical experts that Russian opposition activist Aleksey Navalny was poisoned.” Navalny was sent to Germany for medical treatment.

This has put German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a difficult spot, since she has been proceeding with the $11 billion gas pipeline, Nord Stream 2, making Germany more dependent on Russia for its energy needs. Merkel blames the Russians for the attempted assassination of Navalny, but doesn’t want to cancel cooperation with Russian on the pipeline, which is near completion. President Donald J. Trump, supposedly a Russian agent, has been pressuring Merkel to abandon Nord Stream 2, pay her NATO dues, and buy gas from America.

What’s fascinating is that Russian President Vladimir Putin was a KGB colonel in East Germany and may have supervised the rise of a young German communist youth leader, Angela Merkel, destined to become chancellor of Germany after reunification.

The “October Surprise” is here.  Now, less than 60 days before the presidential election, Trump finds himself in the middle of a confrontation involving Germany with Vladimir Putin and Russia. He can stand up to Putin and Merkel at the same time while exposing the communists on the streets of America with a proposed Nuremberg Initiative to put Putin and his comrades on trial for crimes against humanity.

These extraordinary developments, coming on the eve of America’s 9/11 commemoration, remind us of another poisoning case involving Alexander Litvinenko.  A former KGB officer, he had identified Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, as a Soviet KGB agent. Litvinenko was poisoned in London and killed after he wrote a book, Blowing up Russia, on how Russian agents are behind certain acts of alleged Islamic terrorism.

Ayman Zawahiri, still a Most Wanted Terrorist, was director of al Qaeda’s biological weapons program.

As various experts have argued, the post-9/11 anthrax attacks were never solved by the FBI because the evidence suggests the anthrax was stolen by an al Qaeda operative from a U.S. lab. Admitting this major breach of security was too much for the Deep State to admit. Instead, Robert Mueller’s FBI blamed the attacks on a dead American scientist, Bruce Ivins.

As we remember the lives lost on 9/11, don’t forget that not only couldn’t the CIA and FBI stop the attacks, they couldn’t even stop the al Qaeda terrorists from coming into the U.S. and taking flight training on U.S. soil.

The anthrax letters praised Allah, a tip-off to the identity of the perpetrators, and one of the hijackers was spotted a few days before the assault in a Palm Beach, Florida, pharmacy getting medication for his hands, which had become red and swollen. Another hijacker, who lived and trained as a pilot in Florida where the anthrax attacks began, went to the Holy Cross hospital in Fort Lauderdale complaining of a nasty leg lesion that could have been caused by anthrax. Yet FBI officials dismissed this evidence.

Incredibly, General Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), has just revealed that the U.S. knows where Zawahiri is based. He says, “The home of al Qaeda is in eastern Afghanistan right up against the border (with Pakistan), (a) very small presence there, but the global leader [Zawahiri] is there.”

Trump’s promise to withdraw U.S. troops from the nearly 19-year war in Afghanistan depends on neutralizing Zawahiri. But the Russians may be protecting him. After all, he’s their agent.

The Navalny poisoning continues a trend. As I discussed in a 1995 American Legion Magazine article about Novichok,  the Soviets have long been interested in the use of poisons, Pavel Sudoplatov, deputy director of foreign intelligence of the NKVD (later called KGB), reveals in his book, Special Tasks, the existence of a poison laboratory, called “Lab X” as far back as 1937. The lab developed poisons used to assassinate enemies of Moscow at home and aboard.

After the 2018 Novichok poisoning of military intelligence defector Sergei Skripal and his daughter in England, former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky, who met his own unfortunate demise on October 27, 2019, in England, said, “If two cruise missiles were to be launched at the Lubyanka, the level of terrorism worldwide would drop by approximately 80 percent.”

Lubyanka is the name for the headquarters of the FSB, formerly the KGB.

As President Trump has said repeatedly, his opposition to Nord Stream 2 has done far more to undermine the Putin regime than anything Biden, Hillary, or Obama ever did over the course of their political careers.

But Trump can go further, without going to war, by promoting the so-called Nuremberg initiative of trials for Communists and their fellow travelers. As Geert Wilders, a critic of radical Islam who wrote the book, Marked for Death, notes, “…although defeated Nazi Germany was subject to de-Nazification, there was no de-Marxification after the fall of communism… And without the public accounting of a trial, people tend to forget how evil communism was.”

Trump could adopt the initiative, challenging Democrats to support a proposal that would, as a by-product, highlight the evil nature of the ideology that is currently driving the violent activities of the Black Lives Matter and Antifa groups on the streets of American cities. The real communist dupes would be exposed in the process.


Yes, Joe Biden Would Ban Fracking In Pennsylvania And The Rest Of The U.S.

By: Daniel John Sobieski

Joe Biden has made it clear that he was for fracking before he was against it. Forget the cognitive testing – the cognitive dissidence of the incoherent policies his puppet masters are feeding him through his earpiece is enough to disqualify him for the presidency and may doom him politically in key states like Pennsylvania just as Hillary Clinton’s pledge to bankrupt a lot of coal companies did.

Banning fossil fuels and killing the energy independence Trump achieved before the Wuhan virus pandemic would kill the American economy and future hopes for recovery. It is said a little child shall lead us and a little child named AOC wants to lead us and a President Biden over the economic cliff. She, and Biden running mate Kamala Harris,  may only succeed in pushing Biden over the political cliff as voters realize solar panels and wind turbines are not all that good at creating jobs in the gray skies of winter.

Joe Biden’s emergence from his basement bunker soon went off the rails when in Western Pennsylvania he claimed he never said he would ban fracking. Where does he think his environmental czar AOC stands and what does he think the policy compact he signed with socialist Bernie Sanders say? What does he think the Green New Deal is all about? And certainly, Kamala Harris, whom Biden picked to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, is as anti-fracking as they come.

As PJ Media’s Matt Margolis notes in a video montage, Biden has repeatedly pledged to ban fracking and end the use of fossil fuels, even if it costs millions of American jobs. Personnel is policy, the saying goes, and his reliance on Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Kamala Harris for guidance on energy policy shows exactly where he stands. As Paul Kengor notes in the American Spectator notes, this may doom him politically as the bitter clingers of Pennsylvania and other energy-rich states catch on:

Two months ago, Donald Trump’s numbers in Pennsylvania didn’t look good. Now, given this sudden grassroots groundswell, I’m convinced Biden is the one in trouble. That’s no B.S. And it’s Biden’s leftward lurch that has hurt him, especially with the highly ill-advised pick of Kamala Harris, who folk in this area see as a West Coast leftist whose “progressive” bona fides include an unwavering opposition to fracking. …

“[Pennsylvania] is one of the most robust economies in the country,” Jeff Nobers, executive director of the Builders Guild of Western Pa., told the New York Times. “And it’s mostly fueled by, yeah, the gas industry, the burgeoning petrochemical industry, manufacturing.” The Times also quoted Jim Kunz, business manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 66: “I can tell you, in 2010, my local was at about 10% unemployment. Natural gas started to come here in about 2010. Within a year to a year and a half, we went from 10% unemployment to actually over-employment. I had to look for people. We went to full employment, and we’ve been at or near full employment, and occasionally over-employed.… If we end up with a Democratic candidate that supports a fracking ban, I am going to tell my members that they either don’t vote or vote for the other guy.”

Pennsylvania workers realize this. Pennsylvania citizens realize this. Pennsylvania voters realize this….

Says Shawn Steffe, business agent for Boilermakers Local 154 in Pittsburgh: “Biden needs to steer his car out of the far-left ditch back to the middle if he wants us to support him. It’s not happening. I don’t see my members voting for someone who will take away their jobs and pensions over something that has a lot of half-truths to it.” Steffe, 53 years old, is a lifelong Democrat who voted for Trump in 2016 and intends to again in 2020.

Be afraid, be very afraid. According to a 2016 report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it found the economy would suffer dramatically if lawmakers banned fracking:

“A fracking ban would be a disaster for the U.S. economy, exceeding the economic harm caused by the financial crisis, the housing bust, and the Great Recession—combined,” the report said. “Those concurrent events cost the United States around 8 million jobs. A ban on fracturing would destroy more than 14 million jobs, all while raising costs for families and considerably reducing American energy security.”

A 2019 report by the National Association of State Energy officials noted that thanks to fracking the natural gas industry employed directly some 625,000 Americans in good, high-paying jobs. Those jobs would vanish under a Warren ban. The consequences of a fracking ban would be economically devastating. According to the Washington Free Beacon:

The spike in energy prices would raise the cost of living by $4,000 a year, and household incomes would drop by $873 billion. The report concluded the U.S. gross domestic product would be reduced by $1.6 trillion.

Texas (1,499,000 jobs lost), Pennsylvania (466,000), Ohio (397,000), and Colorado (215,000) would see more than a combined 2.5 million jobs lost from a fracking ban alone over that span, the report said, taking into consideration its effect on energy prices, incomes, manufacturing, and energy security…

Fracking is a big deal well beyond Pennsylvania as well with huge electoral implications. According to the American Petroleum Institute:

“In 2022, job losses under a fracking ban could total 7.5 million — or 4.8% of total U.S. jobs — with nearly 2.5 million jobs lost in Texas, California, and Florida. Other top states for job losses as a share of overall employment include North Dakota, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Kansas.”

Fracking does not cause earthquakes. Nor does it taint well water. The mixture used to fracture shale is in fact a benign blend of 90% water, 9.5% sand, and 0.5% chemicals such as the sodium chloride of table salt and the citric acid of the orange juice you had for breakfast.

Shale formations in which fracking is employed are thousands of feet deep. Drinking water aquifers are generally only 100 feet deep. There is a lot of solid rock between them.

It is fracking that has produced a boom in the production of natural gas, a fossil fuel that has produced a significant reduction in the U.S. of so-called “greenhouse gases.” As the Washington Times recently reported:

White House senior advisor Brian Deese cheered the falling carbon dioxide levels at a Monday press conference without mentioning the outsize role played by natural gas, as the cleaner-burning fuel increasingly overtakes coal in electricity generation.

“For those of you who are not breathlessly following the most recent data that has come out, I would note recent data that we’ve seen suggests or finds that for the first half of 2016, energy sector emissions in the United States are actually down 6 percent from last year, and 15 percent from 2005,” said Mr. Deese. “And they’re at their lowest level in nearly 20 years.”

He said nothing about the U.S. natural gas boom, an omission that critics say has become par for the course as the Obama administration highlights renewable energy and emissions restrictions without acknowledging the role of fracking in natural gas extraction.

“To add dishonesty to injury, his administration is bragging about the reduced CO2 emissions of [the] U.S. industry without crediting the fracking for natural gas, a fossil fuel, that largely caused it,” said Alex Epstein, author of the book “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.”

The Democrats have no case, moral or otherwise, for banning fracking which would ironically hurt the environment they allegedly want to heal while creating an economic collapse. If they insist on advocating, they will be caught between shale rock and a hard place.

*Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.