Monthly Archives: December 2018

Chateau Des Amerois: “Mothers of Darkness Castle” Most Evil Place In The World.

 

This castle must be one of the most Evil places in the World ! Chateau Amerois or Mother of Darkness Castle !

steemit.com

I have known about this castle’s existence for quite a few years! I am sure you have not, so this is my reason for getting this securely onto our Blockchain that we all have invested now to build .

I am sure that most will find the information given in the link I have provided as a little disconcerting, but i feel it important that it remain here, visible for all to see.

This place known as Chateau Amerois ( Castle of Kings ) which has incidentally another name, the Mother of Darkness Castle or the ” place of a thousand points of Light “ that George Bush Snr made an allusion to in his inaugural speech, surely a secret in joke to his darkest of political backers !!

It is reported as being a place essential to the elites of the Illuminati of Dan Brown fame, a veritable hub of Satanical practice and enrollment of future members.

It was formerly owned by the Saxe Gotha Coburg family which you might know more as the ” Windsor’s ” or the British Royal Family. But they sold it on to a family who are the wealthy owners of the SOLVAY GROUP inventor’s of Prozac and industrial scale producer’s of Fluoride which is added to all the water that you drink !

It was also the center of one of Belgium’s biggest ever Pedophiles scandals when a ” person ” known as Mark Dutroux was arrested for organizing orgies and sacrifices of children in Satanical rights where many of Europe’s wealthy elites were known to be present, invited to share and enjoy !!

The case was soon shut down for reasons which thousands of people in Belgium protested in the streets at the time. But clearly the police were pressured to ” bury the thing “before many many bad people in our controlling elites found themselves exposed to be the monster,s that clearly they are.

But it would seem that this diabolical criminality beyond most human imaginations is far from over but continues without check !!

https://illuminati-bloodlines.blogspot.com.es/2009/07/chateaux-des-amerois-mothers-of.html

Chateau Des Amerois: “Mothers of Darkness Castle”

themillenniumreport.com

Chateaux Des Amerois located in forests of Belgium near border of Luxemborg and France, is also alleged, to be a location for Monarch program- ming, orgies and child sacrifice. A place of privilege and people capable of getting away with anything, Mother of Darkness castle, is also rumored to be in a Satanic triangle.

The castle exemplifies mystery but Illuminati researcher Fritz Springmeier turned up following on pg 205 of book, “Bloodlines of the Illuminati“ (pdf):

“…Fritz Springmeier cites a secret castle situated near the village of Muno in Belgium. This castle according to Springmeier, is a center of the occult and has a cathedral with a dome containing 1000 lights. The castle is referred to as the Mothers-of-Darkness castle and Monarch programming is supposedly performed on children there. This castle is also known as the ‘Castle of Kings’. Its real name is ‘Chateau des Amerois’ and it is located in Bouillon (Belgium), near the village of Muno. This castle and its domain, the Muno forest once belonged to Prince Philippe of Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha, Count of Flanders and father of King Albert I. He purchased the property in 1869 to the Marquis van der Noot d’Assche.The castle of Romantic style was built in 1877 for Philippe of Saxe-Cobourg Gotha by the architect Gustave Saintenoy. It has 365 windows. This castle was later bought by Alice Solvay, niece of the Belgian scientist and industrialist Ernest Solvay and today is apparently still owned by the Solvay’s.”

These are the same thousand points of light made famous by George H.W. Bush.

Belgium represents a clear power center of mind control and child abuse. Noreen Gosch, whose son Johnny abducted in eighties, suspects he was subjected to mind control at Offutt AFB in Nebraska. In testimony (pg 3, pdf), Gosch shares belief Monarch programming located at military bases, stretching all the way to NATO in Brussels, Belgium. Paul Bonacci, child abuse victim, involved in the Franklin Scandal circa 1980s Omaha NE, rumored to have traveled to Belgium. Pedophilia represents a grim degeneration that requires vigilance to be held in check. It seems apparent, if allowed to spread a rising tide of pedophilia can span globe, to communicate its degenerate inhumanity!

The Real Obituary Of George H.W. Bush Is A Evil One.

BY TIFFANY FITZHENRY

tiffanyfitzhenry.com

George Herbert Walker Bush spent his 94 years on this planet faithfully continuing what has now been a century-long legacy of creating and then profiting off global, criminal, human atrocities, a legacy begun by his father Prescott, a fellow Yale Man, and fellow member of the clandestine Skull and Bones Society.

Prescott, who provided the financial architecture for Nazism, aided and abetted Adolph Hitler in his rise to power, and even profited off slave labor at Auschwitz, would have no doubt been filled with the kind of pride reserved only for those missing the humanity chip altogether to have watched his son so faithfully carry on the tradition of providing the support for the death and destruction of millions and truly living the Bush family credo that, for some, war can be profitable business.

Just like his father, George H.W. Bush would go on to amass great wealth and political power through the manufacturing of enemies out of thin air, and then in turn personally profit through his covert business dealings with them. In stunningly similar fashion, like a poisonous spider’s web expertly spun and stretching through time and space, George H.W. Bush’s relationship with the Bin Ladin family through the Carlyle Group during the Middle East wars echoes the dark alliance of Prescott and Hitler. This axis of ungodly evil is the bedrock upon which the entire Bush family fortune and political dynasty has been built.

Bush’s deadly political career began with the running of a now legendary ad that was so racist, his campaign director Lee Atwater not only considered it his single greatest regret, but used the final minutes of his own life to apologize for it. Bush, on the other hand, showed no remorse. Rather, he busied himself making what we now know was a stunningly dishonest case for war.

Thirteen years before his son, Prescott’s Grandson, George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify his invasion and occupation of Iraq, Bush Sr. looked square into the face of the American public and without wavering stated that Iraq had invaded Kuwait “without provocation or warning.” Unbeknownst to us however, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq had given a green light to Saddam Hussein just the week before. Imagine Saddam’s surprise when Bush turned around and deployed U.S. troops to the Gulf. To Bush’s credit, using fabricated intelligence in the form of fake satellite images about a completely fictional Iraqi buildup that just didn’t exist, was little more than child’s play for a man who had served as the Director of the C.I.A.

During his year as head of the world’s most clandestine organization, at the top of the list of Bush’s many international atrocities, was without question Operation Condor, a covert campaign of political repression, state terror and political assassinations. The C.I.A. program, which suppressed active or potential opposition movements against the participating South American governments, was directly responsible for at least 60,000 deaths, nearly all civilian victims, which included dissidents, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns, students, teachers and intellectuals.

But, above all else, perhaps Bush’s most distinguishing trait and what he will no doubt be most remembered for, was his unmatched talent for the dark craft of the cover-up. From his undeniable involvement in the deep state JFK coup, to the drug smuggling and arms dealing of the Iran Contra affair, from his active leadership role in facilitating the events of 9/11 including the wars that followed, to the trafficking of children for the satanic ritual abuse and blackmail of Washington elites during the Franklin scandal, committing unthinkable criminal acts and then systematically burying them from public view came terrifyingly natural to George, a skill which he put to frequent use throughout his long and destructive career.

With his passing, may the Bush reign of deep state terror, devilishly masquerading as democracy and politics, a malignant cancer for both America and planet Earth, finally and forever be eradicated from our fair world. May the satanic axiom by which he and all like him lived, ‘do as thou wilt,’ be understood by humanity once and for all, and forever replaced worldwide with ‘do unto others,’ the light of Christ. And may the evil Luciferian darkness his existence edified be buried with him, never to resurface again.



President Trump’s USMCA Creates North American Union And Attacks U.S. Sovereignty.

download (34)

This was a Model Of The Trans Texas Corridor That Failed To Pass In 2010.

Monday, 05 November 2018

What’s Wrong With the USMCA?

Written by Christian Gomez

thenewamerican.com

By making “Americanism, not globalism” the centerpiece of his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump unexpectedly won the presidency, sending shockwaves throughout the United States and cold chills through the globalist elitists who comprise the Deep State. Trump’s election highlighted the American people’s rejection of globalist “integration” schemes, such as President Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which the Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, helped to negotiate in her capacity as secretary of state during Obama’s first term.

To the Deep State, however, the election of Donald Trump represented a threat to their aspirations for a “new world order,” or “world order 2.0,” as Richard N. Haass, president of the pro-world-government Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), fondly calls it in his book A World in Disarray.

Globalists’ fears were shortly justified when three days after his inauguration, President Trump issued a memorandum directing the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to withdraw the United States as a signatory to the TPP and “to permanently withdraw the United States from TPP negotiations.” Understandably, in light of Trump keeping his campaign promise on this topic, the Deep State became anxious at Trump’s repeated threats to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) amid the renegotiation talks with Mexico and Canada.

Unfortunately, with the NAFTA trade talks concluded, those with a propensity for reading trade pacts have found it is the American people who should be concerned with the renegotiated NAFTA — renamed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Building on the previous North American Free Trade Agreement, the USMCA represents the next globalist step toward the economic integration of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a European Union-style arrangement, or North American Union. The USMCA “ends” or “kills” NAFTA only in the sense of pushing forward toward more globalist integration, rather than away from it toward a policy of national sovereignty. In other words, it leaves step one of regional integration because it takes us to step two.

The USMCA is being championed as a “better deal” by President Trump, and if Americans don’t show their disapproval, the Deep State may ride the Trump train to congressional approval for the USMCA and derail American sovereignty in the process. Both President Trump and USTR Robert Lighthizer (shown), a veteran CFR member, have touted the USMCA as a model of all future trade agreements, underscoring its importance.

While it is possible that Congress could vote on the USMCA in the lame-duck session, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McCon­nell has stated otherwise, indicating that the incoming 116th Congress will address it in 2019. “That will be a next-year issue because the process we have to go through doesn’t allow that to come up before the end of this year,” McConnell said on Bloomberg Television on October 16, 2018.

After less than two years of negotiations, the USMCA was released early on October 1, 2018 on the USTR website for the public to read. It runs for 1,809 pages — 1,572 pages for the treaty chapters, 214 pages for additional annexes, and 23 pages of side letters. Obviously, the mammoth size of the agreement should set off alarm bells that much more is involved than “free trade,” which should mean the absence of government intervention.

Of course, President Trump does not see it that way — at least not yet. “This is a terrific deal, for all of us,” he announced later that morning from the Rose Garden. “Once approved by Congress, this new deal will be the most modern, up-to-date, and balanced trade agreement in the history of our country, with the most advanced protections for workers ever developed.” Taking the president’s words at face value, one might think that NAFTA is dead and that the USMCA is a huge win for America that will safeguard its national sovereignty. Unfortunately, his rhetoric belies the reality. The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward.

“A Very Progressive Trade Agreement”

A top-ranking member of Canada’s socialist government, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland, touted the USMCA as “a very progressive trade agreement,” which, according to the Canadian Press news agency, was “aimed at ensuring the benefits of trade-fuelled economic growth are more equitably shared among citizens in the three countries.” The agreement is “very progressive,” according to Freeland, and is intended to equally redistribute the wealth it generates among the citizens of all three countries — as if the United States hasn’t already provided enough incentives under NAFTA for companies to move to our neighbors.

Similarly, Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. Congress have also heaped adulations on the agreement. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — Freedom Index score of 15 percent — congratulated the president, saying that Trump “deserved praise” for his efforts to “improve” NAFTA. “As someone who voted against NAFTA and opposed it for many years, I knew it needed fixing. The president deserves praise for taking large steps to improve it,” Schumer said. He added that his final support for the USMCA would largely depend on dairy and labor provisions. “Labor provisions are good, but too often they are written into trade bills and never enforced,” Schumer said. “If a final agreement is signed by all three countries, I also look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to write ‘implementing legislation’ to ensure the deal actually achieves these goals,” he said.

Likewise, Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said, “The final deal must remove the current outsourcing incentives, raise wages for American workers, and include strong labor and environmental standards with swift and certain enforcement mechanisms for Democrats to approve it.”

She wants a lot and to do little: If the USMCA is the vehicle to implement these changes, Congress is unconstitutionally delegating its powers to foreigners.

She further praised Lighthizer for his work on those areas, saying, “I appreciate United States Trade Representative Lighthizer’s sustained efforts to address some of these concerns throughout this renegotiation.” After examining how “very progressive” the new USMCA is, as Freeland touted, Democrats like Schumer and DeLauro will not be disappointed.

Among some of the new chapters included in the USMCA that were not in the original 1994 NAFTA are chapters on labor and the environment. The USMCA’s Chapter 23 on “Labor” subordinates the United States to the International Labor Organization (ILO), affirming all three countries’ commitment to the ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998) andDeclaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008).

Article 23.3 of the USMCA’s Chapter 23 obligates each country to “adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, … the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.” It is unclear how such provisions could conflict with states that have “right-to-work laws,” potentially opening the door to their abolition or repeal either through the USMCA’s implementation legislation or a future decision from a USMCA dispute resolution panel.

International regimes have already sought to overturn U.S. domestic laws in the name of “free trade.” In 2008, when Congress amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require meat products such as beef and pork sold in the United States to have country of origin labels (COOL), Canada claimed the law violated WTO (World Trade Organization) rules. As a result, Canada and other countries, including Mexico, took the United States to arbitration under a WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The WTO DSB ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico stating that they could retaliate by imposing over $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. products unless the United States repealed the law. On June 10, 2015, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives voted 300 to 131 in favor of repealing COOL, in compliance with the WTO DSB’s decision. COOL’s repeal was also included in the $1.4 trillion omnibus-spending bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in December 2015.

In the interest of “freeing world trade,” a supranational tribunal of the WTO ruled against the freedoms and rights of every American to make an informed decision about where the beef, pork, or chicken products they wish to purchase and eat come from. In light of the USMCA’s strong labor provisions in favor of the “right to collective bargaining,” who’s to say that the same could not happen to U.S. right-to-work laws?

Sujata Dey, a trade campaigner for the Council of Canadians, said the USMCA’s labor provisions are “better than the original NAFTA,” despite what she described as their lack of “enough teeth to really fight against the globalizing impulses which are bringing wages down and bringing in more inequality.” Such “teeth” could be added in the form of Congress’ USMCA implementation legislation. In the case of the auto industry, at least 40 percent of automobiles made in North America will have to be made by workers earning a minimum of $16 per hour, which is significantly higher than the current average wages for autoworkers in Mexico. The original 1994 NAFTA did not contain such wage provisions. While such wage requirements for traditionally low-wage paying countries such as Mexico might seem good for Americans, these wage regulations set a bad precedent. For example, this opens the door for the creation of transnational wage regulations — a power that even the U.S. Congress should not be exercising and does not possess under the U.S. Constitution.

Although the USMCA does not include a separate chapter on gender-related issues, as was originally outlined among Canada’s goals, such language is sprinkled throughout the labor chapter, further advancing the LGBTQ agenda. For example, under “Sex-Based Discrimination in the Workplace,” in the USMCA’s labor chapter, all three countries are required to promote and “implement policies” protecting “gender identity.” And under Article 23.12, all three countries agree to cooperate on “addressing gender-related issues in the field of labor and employment,” as well as on “addressing the opportunities of a diverse workforce, including: … promotion of equality and elimination of employment discrimination in the areas of age, disability, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity … and protection of migrant workers.” (Emphasis added.) In other words, if a man applies for a job and goes to the interview dressed as a woman with a demand to be addressed as if he were a lady and demonstrates even the mildest aptitude to do the job, the employer would be required to hire that individual or risk a lawsuit. Unfortunately the same protections are seldom applied to victims of “Christophobic,” or anti-Christian, discrimination.

Migration Roadmap

Chapter 23 of the USMCA could also serve as a beachhead for a cross-border migration invasion similar to that experienced in the European Union. In language that is virtually identical to that found in the TPP, Article 17.5 of Chapter 17 of the USMCA states: “No party shall adopt or maintain … a measure that … imposes a limitation on … the total number of natural persons that may be employed in a particular financial service sector or that a financial institution or cross-border service supplier may employ … in the form of numerical quotas or the requirement of an economic needs test.” This opens the door for Mexico and its incoming radical socialist government or for a Mexican, a Canadian, or even a U.S.-based company to sue the U.S. government for restricting the number of employees that such a company would want to bring across the border into the United States. As well, provisions from USMCA’s Chapters 17 and 23 have the potential to undermine President Trump’s border security measures and further open our nation’s borders. Article 23.8 on “Migrant Workers” requires each country to “ensure that migrant workers are protected under its labor laws, whether they are nationals or non-nationals” of the country they are residing in. (Emphasis added.)

Such provisions could also further serve to help Democratic lawmakers retain President Obama’s unconstitutional executive action for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, commonly known as DACA. In fact, any adjudication on this matter could very well fall under the judicial jurisdiction of a USMCA bi-national panel for dispute resolution, rather than under the legal control of the United States.

Nascent North American Union

The USMCA also contains language that will undoubtedly be exploited to merge the three countries into a regional economic union, much like the EU — language that non-globalist Republicans fought against in the past. In June 2015, then-Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) exposed how buried within the still-secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership’s more than 5,500 pages was language for creating an entity similar in makeup to what he described as a “nascent European Union” — he was referring to the TPP Commission. He said, speaking from the Senate floor: “Even more significant to me is that it [the TPP agreement] creates something that is a non-trading entity, a commission, a transPacific international commission.” He explained: “This commission will meet regularly. It will be … entitled to make the TPP say different things, eliminate provisions it does not like, and add provisions it does like. In fact, the commission is required to meet regularly and to hear advice for changes from outside groups and from inside committees of the commission so that they can update the situation to change circumstances.”

Delving deeper, Sessions further elaborated, “It says it is designed to promote the international movement of people, services, and products — basically the same language used to start the European Union.”

Everything Sessions said about the TPP could also accurately be said about the USMCA. Chapter 30 of the USMCA establishes the creation of a “Free Trade Commission,” which is broader in scope and power than the original 1994 NAFTA Free Trade Commission. According to Article 30.2, the USMCA reads, “The Commission shall”:

(a) consider matters relating to the implementation or operation of this Agreement;

(b) consider proposals to amend or modify this Agreement;

(c) supervise the work of committees, working groups, and other subsidiary bodies established under this Agreement;

(d) consider ways to further enhance trade and investment between the Parties;

(e) adopt and update the Rules of Procedure and Code of conduct; and

(f) review the roster established under Article 31.8 (Roster and Qualifications of Panelists) every three years and, when appropriate, constitute a new roster.

In other words, the USMCA’s Free Trade Commission can make changes to the agreement itself, implement changes to the agreement, change the rules by which it operates, approve who serves on its lower subordinate committees, and oversee the work of those committees like an international bureaucracy or government — all without the consent or approval of Congress. The Free Trade Commission will also oversee committees on Agricultural Trade, Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures, Textile and Apparel Trade Matters, Customs and Trade Facilitation, Technical Barriers to Trade, Government Procurement, Transportation Services, Financial Services, Telecommunications, Intellectual Property Rights, State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies, the Environment, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Issues, North American Competitiveness, Good Regulatory Practices, and Private Commercial Disputes.

The committees will meet regularly or on an annual basis, depending on the committee, and like the Free Trade Commission, unelected government representatives from each of the three countries will comprise them.

Committees can propose changes or revisions to the chapter in the agreement that corresponds to their area. All of the committees’ work, discussions, findings, and recommendations are to be submitted to the Free Trade Commission for further consideration. And much like the TPP Commission, the Free Trade Commission can make changes to the agreement without the consent of Congress. In fact, the agreement completely undermines Congress’ constitutional Article I, Section 8 power to regulate trade with foreign nations, such as Mexico and Canada, and to impose tariffs on them should the need arise, as in the case of national security.

Tariffs to remedy problems would be out of U.S. hands. Steel and aluminum tariffs for national security such as those imposed by President Trump on Canada and the European Union are not permitted by individual EU member-states, states that are bound together by a regional entity similar to one that the USMCA would create to bind America. One of the purported aims of the EU was to avert another world war on the continent by making all of its member countries economically interdependent, meaning that even Germany’s and France’s national security is intertwined with that of the other EU member nations. The thought is that no single country in the EU should be able to be economically and, in turn, militarily self-sufficient, lest it become a threat to its neighboring countries and the continent as a whole. However, the very ideology hoisted to prevent the rise of another Nazi Germany may also prevent a European country from being able to defend itself from such a threat in the future.

Rather than preventing another Nazi Germany from arising, power is concentrated at the EU level. The same arguments in favor of the EU also work in reverse against the collective body. Furthermore, at the EU level, regulations have a direct and immediate effect on EU member states, and EU directives, which are a bit broader than regulations, set EU objectives, which the member countries are then expected to translate into new national legislation.

Individual European nations sacrifice or “trade” their individual autonomy and security — in turn sacrificing the freedoms of their citizens — to be part of a supposedly stronger whole. However, if one country chooses to leave the group, the other countries oppose it and try to stop it, as was the case with Brexit. Hence why membership in such transnational economic (and eventually political) unions is unquestionably more detrimental than beneficial.

Toward Global Union

Though there are often short-term economic advantages of “free trade agreements,” such as the USMCA’s new access to the Canadian dairy market allowing U.S. farmers to sell their cheese and milk products to Canadian retailers and consumers, the pluses pale in comparison to the long-term cost and consequences of losing national sovereignty — sovereignty lost to unelected and unaccountable transnational and global governing bodies that are far removed from the influence of the nation’s people.

In fact, a North American Competitiveness Committee is to be established with “a view to promoting further economic integration among the Parties” (i.e., the United States, Mexico, and Canada) and “enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports.” (Emphasis added.) It reads as though the purpose is to make the North American bloc competitive with other trade blocs such as the EU, ASEAN, and Eurasian Economic Union, but of course, this is simply a ploy by the Deep State to abolish the modern international system of sovereign nation-states to, in turn, replace it with a transitional world order composed of interdependent transnational unions, with the view of further global integration toward a socialistic one-world economic union. (See article on page 21.)

Entities such as the EU are dictatorial, with the executives in charge put in place by the world’s wealthiest, most influential people — hardly a situation that bodes well for individual rights and freedoms, or, as leftists claim to want, “democracy.”

Today the EU sees itself as a “post national” entity: It has its own flag, capital in Brussels, passports, foreign and diplomatic service, anthem (“Ode to Joy”), currency (the euro), central bank, supreme court (in the form of the European Court of Justice — ECJ), parliament, president, executive branch (the EU Commission, which elects the president), and constitution (the Lisbon Treaty). Despite what it may say, the EU possesses all the hallmarks of a nation state, but at a larger level, transcending the nation-states that make it up.

In the case of Britain, most of its laws come from or have been influenced by the decisions of the EU. According to a research study conducted by Business for Britain, “Between 1993 and 2014, 64.7 per cent of UK law can be deemed to be EU-influenced. EU regulations accounted for 59.3 per cent of all UK law. UK laws implementing EU directives accounted for 5.4 per cent of total laws in force in UK,” the report stated. Further elaborating, “This body of legislation consists of 49,699 exclusively ‘EU’ regulations, 4,532 UK measures which implement EU directives and 29,573 UK only laws.” British MEP (Member of the European Parliament) and leader of the pro-sovereignty United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) Nigel Farage has repeatedly stated that “75 percent of our laws are made in Brussels,” the capital of the European Union. Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of these laws, it should be Britons through their representatives in Parliament that make their nation’s laws, not a collection of foreign bureaucrats across the English Channel.

Britain’s recent Brexit vote to withdraw membership from the EU should serve as a wake-up call for Americans, as the U.S. government proposes entering into a similar transnational union. As the case of the EU shows us, America’s fight against globalism must be won before our globalist politicians cede away too much of our power.

The major steps in creating the EU were not met without resistance and reservation. In 1992, when Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty, that was not the end of Denmark’s membership in the union. Denmark was forced to continue voting on it until the result was a “yes.” At the time, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl told the Danes: “You are just a little people. You cannot dam the Rhine.” The same happened in Ireland. The Irish people rejecting the Treaty of Nice in 2001 following a national referendum. A second referendum was held a year later, which approved the treaty. The second vote was quickly accepted as final. To the EU’s ruling Deep State elite, it does not matter that the citizens of the countries in the European Union repeatedly vote against their country’s continued participation in the Euro-state project, the EU will force it on them.

The new USMCA’s Free Trade Commission fits the criteria of James Madison’s definition of “tyranny”: Writing in The Federalist, No. 47, Founding Father James Madison stated, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The USMCA underscores the urgent need not only to get out of the original NAFTA but to likewise reject the USMCA and all other so-called trade agreements that erode American sovereignty through the establishment of transnational executive commissions and that subordinate the United States to international regimes such as the United Nations, World Trade Organization, and ILO.

¡Viva México!

A chapter in the USMCA puts emphasis on powers that America and Canada will give up, by highlighting powers reserved to Mexico. Chapter 8, entitled “Recognition of the Mexican State’s Direct, Inalienable, and Imprescriptible Ownership of Hydrocarbons,” simply states that “the United States and Canada recognize that”:

(a) Mexico reserves its sovereign right to reform its Constitution and its domestic legislation; and

(b) The Mexican State has the direct, inalienable and imprescriptible ownership of all hydrocarbons in the subsoil of the national territory, including the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone located outside the territorial sea and adjacent thereto, in strata or deposits, regardless of their physical conditions pursuant to Mexico’s Constitution.

That is great news for Mexico, particularly its political and energy sovereignty; however, no such chapter affirms the same recognition for the United States, or Canada’s sovereignty. In fact, Mexico’s constitution is the only constitution that any part of the USMCA affirms to be “pursuant to.”

Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Mexican constitution gives its nation’s federal government power to regulate whole sectors of its economy: “hydrocarbons, mining, chemical substances, explosives, pyrotechnics, movie industry, commerce, bets, draw and raffles, intermediation and financial services, electrical and nuclear energy.” In the United States, the U.S. government has taken charge of many of these areas, especially energy, despite not being granted powers in those areas by the Constitution, and these sectors will likely be controlled by the Free Trade Commission through its subcommittees covering the Environment, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Issues, North American Competitiveness, Good Regulatory Practices, and Private Commercial Disputes.

Energy Integration or Sovereignty?

In the area of energy, the three countries are already merging. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released an eye-opening report revealingly entitled “North American Energy Integration.” This 58-page report, which was discreetly posted on the GAO website in August, is intended for the House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. The report outlines in detail the progress of eight U.S. federal government agencies and departments in integrating the energy sectors of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

According to the GAO report, the “United States cooperates with Canada and Mexico on integrating North American energy markets and infrastructure (energy integration),” further elaborating, “Cooperation occurs at the presidential and ministerial levels (e.g., the countries’ secretaries or ministries of energy) for strategic issues and at the agency level for technical issues.”

In researching for its report, the GAO surveyed various U.S. government officials from the agencies involved in the energy integration scheme. According to those surveyed, a total of 81 energy integration-related schemes were conducted from 2014 through 2017. Those energy integration schemes are listed and summarized in Appendix III of the GAO’s report.

The report also stated that U.S., Canadian, and Mexican officials “expressed general satisfaction with intergovernmental cooperation on energy integration” and that they suggested “further work in areas such as aligning energy regulations.” (Emphasis added.)

Harmonizing energy regulations of the three countries would more easily facilitate their merger. The logical conclusion of these 81 energy integration schemes, and further work to synchronize the energy regulations of all three countries, is a North American Union, much like the present and already integrated European Union. Page six of the GAO report states: “NAFTA has enhanced North American energy integration, facilitating a greater flow of oil, natural gas, and petroleum-derived products among all three North American countries.” Although the report was published prior to the release of the new USMCA, it stated that then-ongoing NAFTA talks would have little effect on the efforts to integrate North America’s energy sectors. According to the report, “State and DOE officials we interviewed said they did not expect the U.S. renegotiation of NAFTA and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to have a significant impact and stated that the energy sector in North America is already well integrated.”

Among the objectives of the North American energy integration plan is to merge the energy grids of all three countries into one single North American energy grid. In fact, page 43 of the GAO report discusses efforts to integrate the U.S.-Mexico energy grid and the need to “enhance the resiliency of the North American energy grid,” rather than referring to it as the energy grids of the three separate countries. (Emphasis added.) The question then naturally arises: Under whose jurisdiction would such a North American energy grid eventually fall? Would it be under Mexico, Canada, the United States, or that of an even higher transitional authority, such as the USMCA’s Free Trade Commission? At present, the answer is unclear, but one thing that is clear is that if the United States goes ahead with the USMCA, it will wreak havoc on America’s national sovereignty.

Can USMCA Be Stopped?

The USMCA can most certainly be stopped. It happened before with the TPP and Free Trade Area of the Americas, and it can happen again; however, the Deep State will not make it easy. The United States didn’t get on board with the TPP, even with a seemingly popular president — Obama — who lauded the globalist-controlled Deep State. Obama failed to convince much of his own liberal base to support the TPP. The TPP’s widespread unpopularity resonated in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, with both candidates, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Hillary Clinton, coming out against the agreement. On the Right, those who supported real free trade, such as Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.), would later change their initial support to oppose the agreement. Most Americans, on both the Left and the Right, recognized the TPP as a direct threat to American sovereignty and jobs.

The road will be tough now that Trump, who called both the TPP and NAFTA a “disaster” and the “worst trade agreements in history,” heralds the USMCA as one of his many “promises kept.” But it can be done if people are informed that the USMCA is everything that Trump hated about NAFTA and the TPP, plus more — and that the real solution is to have Congress, not multinational or international entities, decide trade and other policies that fall within the enumerated powers of the Constitution.

It is up to us at the grassroots level, through organizations such as The John Birch Society and publications such as The New American magazine, to inform the electorate, opinion molders, members of Congress, and President Trump about what’s really in this USMCA agreement and the need to stop it, in addition to withdrawing the United States from the original NAFTA. Both NAFTA and the USMCA lay the groundwork for a North American Union and threaten our constitutional Republic. Now is the time to act.

New NAFTA: Text of U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Revealed.

download (34)

This was a Model Of The Trans Texas Corridor That Failed To Pass In 2010.

amero_real

USMCA Full Text Click Here.

Written by Christian Gomez

thenewamerican.com

Late Sunday night, Canada agreed to join the new renegotiated NAFTA — officially named the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA — meeting the self-imposed midnight deadline in order to complete an agreement in time for current Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to sign it before he leaves office on December 1.

In a joint statement United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said:

Today, Canada and the United States reached an agreement, alongside Mexico, on a new, modernized trade agreement for the 21st Century: the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). USMCA will give our workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses a high-standard trade agreement that will result in freer markets, fairer trade and robust economic growth in our region. It will strengthen the middle class, and create good, well-paying jobs and new opportunities for the nearly half billion people who call North America home.

We look forward to further deepening our close economic ties when this new agreement enters into force.

We would like to thank Mexican Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo for his close collaboration over the past 13 months.

Within hours of their announcement, the full text of the agreement was posted on the USTR website and can be read here.

The proposed USMCA has been widely portrayed as a replacement for NAFTA, which supposedly will no longer exist. Yet an honest look at the new agreement shows that what will no longer exist is the highly unpopular NAFTA name. In fact, not only does the USMCA retain sovereignty-diminishing provisions found in NAFTA, but it actually strengthens and expands them.

The USMCA has a total of 34 chapters, 12 more than the original 1994 NAFTA, which only had 22 chapters. Unlike the 1994 NAFTA, the USMCA includes chapters on labor, the environment, anticorruption, regulatory policy, competitiveness, and Mexico’s exclusive ownership of its gasoline and natural gas resources, among others.

The following is a list of the USMCA’s 34 chapters, along with their annexes:

1. Initial Provisions and General Definitions

2. National Treatment and Market Access for Goods (US Tariff ScheduleUS Tariff Schedule Appendix 1MX Tariff ScheduleMX Tariff Schedule Appendix 1CA Tariff ScheduleCA TRQ Appendix)

3. Agriculture

4. Rules of Origin

5. Origin Procedures

6. Textiles and Apparel

7. Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation

8. Recognition of Mexican Ownership of Hydrocarbons

9. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

10. Trade Remedies

11. Technical Barriers to Trade

12. Sectoral Annexes

13. Government Procurement

14. Investment

15. Cross-Border Trade in Services

16. Temporary Entry

17. Financial Services

18. Telecommunications

19. Digital Trade

20. Intellectual Property

21. Competition Policy

22. State-Owned Enterprises

23. Labor

24. Environment

25. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

26. Competitiveness

27. Anticorruption

28. Good Regulatory Practices

29. Publication and Administration

30. Administrative and Institutional Provisions

31. Dispute Settlement

32. Exceptions and General Provisions

33. Macroeconomic Policies and Exchange Rate Matters

34. Final Provisions

In total, the USMCA is a whopping 1,809 pages —1,572 pages for the treaty itself, 214 pages for annexes, and 23 pages for side letters. In comparison, NAFTA was over 1,700 pages long — 741 pages for the treaty itself, 348 pages for annexes, and 619 pages for additional footnotes and explanations.

Once in force, the agreement will have a 16-year life, after which it will automatically be terminated unless the countries agree to renew the agreement for another 16 years. According to Article 34.7 of Chapter 34, entitled “Final Provisions,” the “Agreement shall terminate 16 years after the date of its entry into force, unless each Party confirms it wishes to continue the Agreement for a new 16-year term.” In other words, if the USMCA goes into effect in 2019, the agreement would not terminate until the year 2035 unless it is renewed for another 16 years, at which point it would not expire until 2051.

However, the United States, Mexico, and Canada will have an opportunity to review the agreement every six years, at which time they can decide whether to renew it or not, or propose changes. If during the review, the head of state of one of the countries expresses a desire to remain in the agreement, their agreement will be given an automatic renewal. Countries also have the opportunity to withdraw from the agreement with a six-month written notice. Even if one country withdraws, the agreement remains in effect for the other countries.

According to Article 34.6, “A Party may withdraw from this Agreement by providing written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. A withdrawal shall take effect six months after a Party provides written notice to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.”

Submission to International Authority

Consistent with other globalist schemes, the USMCA follows the “rules-based system” of compliance to international authorities such as the World Trade Organization, International Labor Organization, a plethora of United Nations conventions including the Law of Sea treaty, and the furtherance of “sustainable development,” which is mentioned no less than six times in the environment chapter.

One example of the USMCA’s complete subordination to international authority can be found in Article 24.18 of the new environment chapter, regarding fisheries, which states in part:

3. Each Party shall base its fisheries management system on the best scientific evidence available and on internationally recognized best practices for fisheries management and conservation as reflected in the relevant provisions of international instruments aimed at ensuring the sustainable use and conservation of marine species.

The footnote below for that section defines what exactly those “international instruments” are, stating:

These instruments include, among others, and as they may apply, United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, done at New York, December 4, 1995 (UN Fish Stocks Agreement), the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the 1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas(Compliance Agreement), done at Rome, November 24, 1993, the 2001 FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU Fishing), and the 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate IUU Fishing.

Toward a North American Union

In a bold step toward a potential North American Union, the USMCA establishes a new governing international bureaucracy. Chapter 30 of the agreement establishes the creation of a Free Trade Commission as a regional governing bureaucracy overseeing various lower regional committees. Article 30, section 1, of the agreement states, “The Parties hereby establish a Free Trade Commission, composed of government representatives of each Party at the level of Ministers or their designees.” Article 30, section 2, outlines the various functions and powers of the Free Trade Commission as follows:

1. The Commission shall:

(a) consider matters relating to the implementation or operation of this

Agreement;

(b) consider proposals to amend or modify this Agreement;

(c) supervise the work of committees, working groups, and other subsidiary

bodies established under this Agreement;

(d) consider ways to further enhance trade and investment between the Parties;

(e) adopt and update the Rules of Procedure and Code of conduct ; and

(f) review the roster established under Article 31.8 (Roster and Qualifications

of Panelists) every three years and, when appropriate, constitute a new

roster.

The Free Trade Commission requires the United States, Mexico, and Canada to “establish and oversee a Secretariat comprising national Sections.” All three countries will be responsible for establishing and maintaining a “permanent office of its Section and be responsible for its operation and costs.” The role of the Secretariat will be to assist and promote the work of the Commission, provide administrative assistance to any dispute-settlement panels, and to cover the costs and expenses for panelists, assistants, and experts involved in a dispute-settlement proceeding.

Beneath the Free Trade Commission, the USMCA authorizes all three countries to establish the following subordinate committees:

• Committee on Agricultural Trade,

• Committee on Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures,

• Committee on Textile and Apparel Trade Matters,

• Customs and Trade Facilitation Committee,

• Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade,

• Committee on Government Procurement,

• Committee on Transportation Services,

• Committee on Financial Services,

• Committee on Telecommunications,

• Committee on Intellectual Property Rights,

• Committee on State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies,

• Environment Committee,

• Committee on SME (Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises) Issues,

• North American Competitiveness Committee,

• Committee on Good Regulatory Practices, and an

• Advisory Committee on Private Commercial Disputes

The specific functions for each committee are outlined in their corresponding chapters. Nevertheless, all of these committees are to be comprised of representatives from the governments of all three countries. The committees are responsible for overseeing and helping to implement the agreement in their particular area. They will also be tasked with addressing any issues that arise under their area.

Committees will meet regularly or on an annual basis, and they are supposed to help encourage or foster greater cooperation and trade among all three countries in their given areas. Committees can also propose changes or revisions to the chapter in the agreement that corresponds to their area. All of the committees’ work, discussions, findings, and recommendations are to be submitted to the Free Trade Commission for consideration.

And much like the TPP Commission, the Free Trade Commission can make changes to the USMCA without the consent of Congress. In fact, the agreement completely undermines Congress’ Constitutional Article I, Section 8 power to regulate trade with foreign nations, such as Mexico and Canada, and to impose tariffs on them should the need arise, as in the case of national security.

The Free Trade Commission would also have the power to consider or adopt any changes to a country’s scheduled tariff commitments by accelerating the elimination of tariffs or by making “adjustments to the Tariff Preferential Levels established in Chapter 6 (Textile and Apparel Goods).”

Among the most revealing and unsurprising aspects of these transnational committees, which underscores the value of the USMCA to the Deep State, is the stated objective of the North American Competitiveness Committee. In the USMCA’s Chapter 26 on competitiveness, all three countries agree to establish a Committee on Competitiveness, or a North American Competitiveness Committee, with “a view to promoting further economic integration among the Parties and enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports.” In other words, the committee’s objective is not about making the United States, Mexico, and Canada more competitive with each other, but making the three of them as a bloc more competitive with the rest of the world, hence its function to promote “further economic integration” between the three countries.

USMCA will not help the United States, Mexico, or Canada be more competitive individually or boost any one of three countries’ economies. The Deep State does not wish for the United States alone to be competitive with the rest of the world, or maintain global economic dominance; instead it must surrender its sovereignty — along with that of its neighbors — to a new supranational body that will supposedly protect “North American” jobs, industry, and economy.

Rather than putting “America first,” as President Trump has repeatedly promised, or to “Make America Great Again,” his new NAFTA, the USMCA, demotes the United States to second tier in pursuit of making North America great. The USMCA makes North America great at the expense of the United States and its national sovereignty.

Under this scheme, the United States will be required to surrender its sovereignty in order for a chance to be a member of the winning team. Americans have been lied to and duped by their government into believing that their elected leaders are working in their interest, only to subordinate America’s interests to those of North America. It’s only a matter of time before the same charade is pulled on North America in order to integrate it with the world’s other regional trade blocs (i.e. the European Union, African Union, Union of South America, Eurasian Economic Union, RCEP, TPP, T-TIP) into one world economic union and commission, under the auspices of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.

The result of “promoting further economic integration” among the United States, Mexico, and Canada, necessitating the creation of an all-powerful, unelected so-called Free Trade Commission will be nothing less than a North American Union, and that alone should motivate patriotic Americans to vehemently reject the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

Far from making America great again, the USMCA is a bag of goodies for globalists and a death certificate for American national sovereignty.

Violent Antifa Radicals Attack Marine Corps Reservists In Philadelphia.

tom-keenan-philly-antifa-marines-attacked--1200x630

Nov 27, 2018

By Peter D’Abrosca

bigleaguepolitics.com

The head of Philadelphia’s Antifa thugs has been arrested after he and his comrades attacked Marine Corps reservists near a November 17 “We The People” rally in the City of Brotherly Love.

“Last week, we told you that the Philadelphia Police Department was asking for the public’s help to identify a group of people who allegedly attacked United States Marine Corps reservists in Old City, and now police say they have one suspect in custody: Tom Keenan, who has been associated with Philadelphia’s antifa movement,” said Philadelphia Magazine.

Police allege that Keenan and his masked, black clad ilk physically attacked the Marines before robbing them, calling the “Nazis” and “white supremacists” during the incident.

“He has been charged with two counts each of criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, simple assault, and reckless endangerment,” the report said. “Keenan, who was not charged with robbery, was released on bail and is scheduled for a preliminary hearing on December 6th.”

Trending: WHAT?! Antifa Groups Are Using Patreon To Fund Violent ‘Insurrection’ Against America

In 2007, Keenan was charged with criminal conspiracy, institutional vandalism, resisting arrest, and criminal mischief stemming from a similar incident, according to the report. He agreed to a plea deal including a guilty plea for disorderly conduct in exchange the other charges being dropped.

“We The People” rallies, which have popped up across the country, are celebrations of freedom and American values. They are often targets for halfway thugs like Antifa, who passionately hate America. It shouldn’t be long before the media – which also hates America – begins defending Keenan’s actions.

NASA’s Voyager 2 Probe Launched In 1977 Enters Interstellar Space.

1-PIA22835-16-640x350

This illustration shows the position of NASA’s Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 probes, outside of the heliosphere, a protective bubble created by the Sun that extends well past the orbit of Pluto. Voyager 1 exited the heliosphere in August 2012. Voyager 2 exited at a different location in November 2018. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

nasa.gov

DECEMBER 10, 2018

For the second time in history, a human-made object has reached the space between the stars. NASA’s Voyager 2 probe now has exited the heliosphere – the protective bubble of particles and magnetic fields created by the Sun.

Members of NASA’s Voyager team will discuss the findings at a news conference at 11 a.m. EST (8 a.m. PST) today at the meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in Washington. The news conference will stream live on the agency’s website.

Comparing data from different instruments aboard the trailblazing spacecraft, mission scientists determined the probe crossed the outer edge of the heliosphere on Nov. 5. This boundary, called the heliopause, is where the tenuous, hot solar wind meets the cold, dense interstellar medium. Its twin, Voyager 1, crossed this boundary in 2012, but Voyager 2 carries a working instrument that will provide first-of-its-kind observations of the nature of this gateway into interstellar space.

Voyager 2 now is slightly more than 11 billion miles (18 billion kilometers) from Earth. Mission operators still can communicate with Voyager 2 as it enters this new phase of its journey, but information – moving at the speed of light – takes about 16.5 hours to travel from the spacecraft to Earth. By comparison, light traveling from the Sun takes about eight minutes to reach Earth.

Voyager-BytheNumbers-640

Artist’s concept of Voyager 2 with 9 facts listed around it. Image Credit: NASA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most compelling evidence of Voyager 2’s exit from the heliosphere came from its onboard Plasma Science Experiment (PLS), an instrument that stopped working on Voyager 1 in 1980, long before that probe crossed the heliopause. Until recently, the space surrounding Voyager 2 was filled predominantly with plasma flowing out from our Sun. This outflow, called the solar wind, creates a bubble – the heliosphere – that envelopes the planets in our solar system. The PLS uses the electrical current of the plasma to detect the speed, density, temperature, pressure and flux of the solar wind. The PLS aboard Voyager 2 observed a steep decline in the speed of the solar wind particles on Nov. 5. Since that date, the plasma instrument has observed no solar wind flow in the environment around Voyager 2, which makes mission scientists confident the probe has left the heliosphere.

PIA22924-640

At the end of 2018, the cosmic ray subsystem aboard NASA’s Voyager 2 spacecraft provided evidence that Voyager 2 had left the heliosphere. There were steep drops in the rate of heliospheric particles that hit the instrument’s radiation detector, and significant increases in the rate of cosmic rays. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/GSFC
Larger view

“Working on Voyager makes me feel like an explorer, because everything we’re seeing is new,” said John Richardson, principal investigator for the PLS instrument and a principal research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. “Even though Voyager 1 crossed the heliopause in 2012, it did so at a different place and a different time, and without the PLS data. So we’re still seeing things that no one has seen before.”

In addition to the plasma data, Voyager’s science team members have seen evidence from three other onboard instruments – the cosmic ray subsystem, the low energy charged particle instrument and the magnetometer – that is consistent with the conclusion that Voyager 2 has crossed the heliopause. Voyager’s team members are eager to continue to study the data from these other onboard instruments to get a clearer picture of the environment through which Voyager 2 is traveling.

“There is still a lot to learn about the region of interstellar space immediately beyond the heliopause,” said Ed Stone, Voyager project scientist based at Caltech in Pasadena, California.

Together, the two Voyagers provide a detailed glimpse of how our heliosphere interacts with the constant interstellar wind flowing from beyond. Their observations complement data from NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX), a mission that is remotely sensing that boundary. NASA also is preparing an additional mission – the upcoming Interstellar Mapping and Acceleration Probe (IMAP), due to launch in 2024 – to capitalize on the Voyagers’ observations.

“Voyager has a very special place for us in our heliophysics fleet,” said Nicola Fox, director of the Heliophysics Division at NASA Headquarters. “Our studies start at the Sun and extend out to everything the solar wind touches. To have the Voyagers sending back information about the edge of the Sun’s influence gives us an unprecedented glimpse of truly uncharted territory.”

While the probes have left the heliosphere, Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 have not yet left the solar system, and won’t be leaving anytime soon. The boundary of the solar system is considered to be beyond the outer edge of the Oort Cloud, a collection of small objects that are still under the influence of the Sun’s gravity. The width of the Oort Cloud is not known precisely, but it is estimated to begin at about 1,000 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun and to extend to about 100,000 AU. One AU is the distance from the Sun to Earth. It will take about 300 years for Voyager 2 to reach the inner edge of the Oort Cloud and possibly 30,000 years to fly beyond it.

The Voyager probes are powered using heat from the decay of radioactive material, contained in a device called a radioisotope thermal generator (RTG). The power output of the RTGs diminishes by about four watts per year, which means that various parts of the Voyagers, including the cameras on both spacecraft, have been turned off over time to manage power.

“I think we’re all happy and relieved that the Voyager probes have both operated long enough to make it past this milestone,” said Suzanne Dodd, Voyager project manager at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. “This is what we’ve all been waiting for. Now we’re looking forward to what we’ll be able to learn from having both probes outside the heliopause.”

Voyager 2 launched in 1977, 16 days before Voyager 1, and both have traveled well beyond their original destinations. The spacecraft were built to last five years and conduct close-up studies of Jupiter and Saturn. However, as the mission continued, additional flybys of the two outermost giant planets, Uranus and Neptune, proved possible. As the spacecraft flew across the solar system, remote-control reprogramming was used to endow the Voyagers with greater capabilities than they possessed when they left Earth. Their two-planet mission became a four-planet mission. Their five-year lifespans have stretched to 41 years, making Voyager 2 NASA’s longest running mission.

The Voyager story has impacted not only generations of current and future scientists and engineers, but also Earth’s culture, including film, art and music. Each spacecraft carries a Golden Record of Earth sounds, pictures and messages. Since the spacecraft could last billions of years, these circular time capsules could one day be the only traces of human civilization.

Voyager’s mission controllers communicate with the probes using NASA’s Deep Space Network (DSN), a global system for communicating with interplanetary spacecraft. The DSN consists of three clusters of antennas inGoldstone, California; Madrid, Spain; and Canberra, Australia.

The Voyager Interstellar Mission is a part of NASA’s Heliophysics System Observatory, sponsored by the Heliophysics Division of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington. JPL built and operates the twin Voyager spacecraft. NASA’s DSN, managed by JPL, is an international network of antennas that supports interplanetary spacecraft missions and radio and radar astronomy observations for the exploration of the solar system and the universe. The network also supports selected Earth-orbiting missions. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia’s national science agency, operates both the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, part of the DSN, and the Parkes Observatory, which NASA has been using to downlink data from Voyager 2 since Nov. 8.

Navy Creating Attack Sub Aggressor Unit to Train to Fight Against Russia, China.

ssn780

Virginia-class fast-attack submarine USS Missouri (SSN-780) on May 31, 2018. US Navy Photo

By: Megan Eckstein

November 8, 2018 4:00 AM • Updated: November 7, 2018 8:58 PM

usni.org

ARLINGTON, Va. — The U.S. Navy submarine force is creating an aggressor squadron as one initiative to ensure all subs are combat-ready as the service trains to take on China and Russia, the commander of Naval Submarine Forces said on Wednesday.

Vice Adm. Charles Richard, who took command in August, drew attention during the change of command ceremony by telling the force to “prepare for battle.”

He has backed up those words with actions in the months since, moving ahead with a plan – updated in March to reflect the National Defense Strategy – that includes refocusing training and certification on combat and developing new tools and concepts to support high-end warfighting.

The plan – called the Commander’s Intent for the United States Submarine Force and Supporting Organizations – led to an overhaul of training for the attack submarine force, Richard said today while addressing the Naval Submarine League at its annual conference.

“We have restructured and retuned the fast attack training period to ensure that we’re ready for that high-end fight, including restructuring what we used to call the Tactical Readiness Evaluation, and it is now a Combat Readiness Evaluation to ensure we’re focused on warfighting,” he said.
“We’ve updated the deployment certification process to eliminate duplication, put the right focus in the right place. I’ll tell you that I am driving to put competition in everything we do inside the submarine force. I want to produce winners and losers just like we do in battle; it does you no good to be at standards if your opponent is more at standards than you are. You still lose, and in this competition, you may not come home.”

The new aggressor squadron fits in with the desire to create more high-end sub-on-sub competitions and ensure the Navy is ready to win. Richard said the plan mimics what the naval aviation community has at “Top Gun.”

Navy spokeswoman Cmdr. Sarah Self-Kyler told USNI News at the event that, unlike Top Gun, the squadron won’t have its own submarines dedicated to training the squadron and fighting other submarines in training events. Instead, the squadron will include a yet-to-be-determined number of personnel – which Richard said would include active and reserve sailors and civilians – and that personnel would get to work with submarines and sub crews as allowed by operational and training schedules.

Richard, calling the new group “a cadre that does nothing but emulate red in all of our training and certification exercises, said “we’re taking a page from naval aviation and we’re establishing an aggressor squadron with a team that will become experts in employing our adversaries’ potential capabilities and then set them up to be able to go head-to-head with our units so that we’re always training against what we think is the highest fidelity simulation I can give them in terms of what they might be able to expect when they go into combat.”

The Commander’s Intent plan also outlines an Undersea Rapid Capability Initiatives (URCI) program that Richard said not only delivers “stuff” but also concepts of operations, tactics, maintenance strategies and more.

“I can’t go into a lot of detail given the nature of the work – it is classified – but I am able to tell you that we are working on 26 major future projects, including the Navy’s number-one priority of strategic deterrence; 13 URCIs; 11 operational initiatives; and a series of advanced workshops and military exercises designed to expand our capabilities in the undersea domain. We are pursuing next-generation weapons, multi-domain sensors, comms systems, navigation aids, and unmanned and autonomous technologies. In some cases, these capabilities are revolutionary and will inform future programs of record.”

On the hardware side of this rapid development, Richard highlighted the work the Navy’s Digital Warfare Office is helping them do to move full speed ahead with “the employment and naval application of artificial intelligence and machine learning.” He also cited DARPA and the Office of Naval Research and their work with prototypes of unmanned systems and advanced sensors that have made significant progress in development and testing in just the past couple of years.

Lastly, he cited the ingenuity of the fleet in embracing additive manufacturing as a means of boosting readiness and helping reduce their logistics footprint.

“Onboard our submarines, we are embracing the future of at-sea maintenance and repair. We are actively experimenting with additive manufacturing and working expediently to provide this capability to all of my ships – all of my boats will get 3D printers in the near-term,” Richard said.

He noted that SUBSAFE standards would still apply but that the printers could still prove to be a useful asset to the crews. The crew of attack submarine USS Virginia (SSN-774) bought their own 3D printer and “in using that, built themselves a part at sea and helped keep their boat on deployment. It is that type of initiative and problem-solving that happens daily across the force.”

« Older Entries