(no message)
(no message)
I'm amazed that so many of my putative "conservative" friends who used to realize that Putin was an anti-Western anti-American KGB man who wanted to reconstitute the Soviet Union with himself as a new Peter the Great emperor suddenly started praising Putin as a "strong leader" and USA "friend" when their unfortunate choice Trump was outed as a Russophile.
said John Kerry.
Frankly, I haven't met one conservative who called Putin a "friend" but apparently you have in the liberal circiles that you run in.
Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/moscow-sec-kerry-praises-cooperative-effort-russia/
I am actually curious to understand your thought process.
So I figured you were hanging out with libs. I was wrong.
He's just not deaf, dumb, and bot blind like you are when it comes to the Orangetan and Putie.
(no message)
This is what is causing all of the sabre-rattling in D.C.
The Russians are leading the charge against the petro dollar and the Central Bankers won't sit idly by and allow that to happen.
Enter the Central Bank/IMF-controlled US politicos and the MSM.
This is a PsyOp on the American populace.
The BRICS are attempting to offer an alternative to the petro dollar and that would destabilize the International banking cabal's monopoly on all global finance.
Putin has further threatened to dis-engage from SWIFT transactions. The thing that scares the West the most is that Trump wants to improve relations w/Russia, thus spoiling the Central Bankers' plans.
To put it more bluntly, a war to reset the global financial order is about to be unleashed.
Preparations inside Russia are being made in case the ultimate banking sanctions are placed on them, cutting off commerce inside the all-encompassing Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecomm SWIFT system – which runs credit, debt, and banking card transactions across a real time global network.
As it would be doled out by the banking elites, the price for misbehavior at the Kremlin could be ostracization from this global commerce vehicle.
But that isn’t the end of the story… Putin is readying his people to divorce from the international banking system altogether, and start over with a nationalistic platform, backed by thousands of tons of gold, and growing alliances with Europe, China and the BRICS nations, the Middle East and several emerging powers.
A major attempt to bring Russia under heel could result in the greatest schism the global system of finance has ever seen. Then what?
via Russia Insider:
"Russia has successfully developed and implemented an alternative should it be excluded from international banking systems, according to a recent report."
As far as western sanctions go, by far Russia’s largest vulnerability is in its banking sector, which for better or for worse is tied to the hip with international banking.
If Russia wishes to maintain the status quo, there’s not much that can be done about this dependency. But shortly after sanctions were announced in 2014, Moscow set out to prepare for the worst-case scenario: being cut off from the Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) system.
In layman’s terms, SWIFT allows for fast and (allegedly) secure international financial transfers. In fifty years when you are able to use your Bank of America debit card on the Moon (for a low fee of 2,000 moon rubles), it will be because of SWIFT or a system similar to it.
There are two issues surrounding SWIFT “cut-off” for Russia: 1. Is it likely to happen? and 2. Is Russia prepared for it?
Such a move “we would see as very problematic because it could perhaps undermine confidence in this system,” the governor of Austria’s central bank told reporters… Of course, this hasn’t stopped Europe and Washington from threatening to pull the SWIFT plug.
as anything other than an adversary of our nation.
(no message)
(no message)
When both his campaign manager and security advisor are taking money from them, that's an issue, yes?
Or is that only when they are giving money to the Clinton Foundation? I balee there was some talk about those innocent, nice guys getting access to uranium through the CF? Of course, you wouldn't have been one of those critics would you?
(no message)
(no message)
-by TOM TANCREDO
...and only a fool can believe it will end well.
The nastiest opponents to President Trump inside and out of government apparently feel justified in using “any means necessary” to defeat and remove him. Every day sees more evidence of a desire not only to block his policies but to drive him from office. While it does not yet rise to the level of an organized conspiracy, it does raise serious issues of constitutional fidelity.
First, in the weeks following the November election, we saw street protest and marches, followed by lawsuits, then leaks from inside government, and then talk of “impeachment” over crimes for which no evidence exists.
And folks, in the words of Al Jolson, you ain’t seen nothing yet. It’s probably going to get worse.
The seeds of this “cultural embarrassment” over Trump’s victory were planted in the days immediately following the November 8 election:
First, there was the nonsensical insistence that his victory was illegitimate because he won only the Electoral College majority and not a popular vote majority. Unfortunately, the Constitution is silent on the popular mandate theory.
When that didn’t take hold, the opponents drummed up a claim the election was “stolen” from Hillary Clinton by Trump campaign collusion with “the Russians.” That became a constant media drumbeat for weeks and continues today.
Then as the icing on this half-baked cake came the orchestrated resistance to Trump’s immigration executive orders through desperate challenges in federal courts brought before Obama-appointed judges.
These efforts have at least three obvious things in common: desperation born of utter shock at Trump’s election victory; self-righteous elitist arrogance; and the active participation and support from the nation’s major media organizations.
Yet, there is another novel element interwoven in these events that is even more dangerous – dangerous not simply as a political obstacle to Trump’s agenda, but inherently dangerous to the survival of our country.
That novel element is the active, conscious subversion of lawful Presidential orders and initiatives by the permanent civil service apparatus called the “senior bureaucracy.” It is also being called the “Deep State,” meaning the part of the government that is immune to political appointment and political accountability.
And most dangerous of all is the involvement of our nation’s intelligence agencies in the leaks aimed at embarrassing the President. The earliest news stories about an alleged “Russian connection” openly named America’s intelligence operations as the source.
Now comes this month’s FBI testimony that the agency has been conducting an investigation of the Trump campaign, and yet the FBI still has not cited any evidence of any law-breaking that justifies the investigation.
This involvement of intelligence agencies and the FBI in politically-inspired investigations – and the subsequent leaking of information gathered in the surveillance– puts into question the President’s ability to trust the information provided to him by those agencies. And THAT, my friends, can seriously impair his ability to manage national security policy and any international or terrorism-related crisis that occurs.
The theme of an “illegitimate presidency” provides a veneer of moral justification for seemingly disconnected acts of political sabotage. If resistance to Trump’s policies is resistance to “tyranny” by a “usurper,” then nothing is out of bounds or off limits.
This “supra-legal” arrogance is what makes the anti-Trump campaign potentially lethal for constitutional government. The effort to paint President Trump as a usurper who deserves to be thrown out of office is unprecedented in its scope and intensity, and it will have unintended consequences for the Republic.
This week there were revelations from the House Intelligence Committee supporting Trump’s allegation of Obama regime surveillance of the Trump campaign and transition. Intelligence gathered by lawful wiretaps of foreign agent activities recorded “incidental” conversations involving persons inside or close to Trump campaign. Those “intercepted” conversations reportedly had nothing to do with alleged “Russian hacking” of the election, nor did they reveal any “collusion” with Russian agents. Yet, contrary to law, the conversations were shared with Obama White House staff and then with the media.
How do we explain the bizarre obsession of Democrat leaders and the media with the “Russian connection”? Not one tiny shred of evidence has been produced by anyone to show any Trump campaign collusion with Russian activities connected to the 2016 election. And yet, the media and Democrat opponents (sorry, I repeat myself) continue to raise that specter to keep alive the myth of a “stolen election.”
In the last days of the Obama administration, new rules were signed into law by Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the NSA Director as administrative amendments to Executive Order 12333, rules allowing the distribution of certain raw intelligence data to 16 additional government agencies at home and abroad. It may have been those new rules which facilitated the leaking of information concerning conversations Trump’s nominee for NSC-director, Mike Flynn, had with the Russian Ambassador—conversations which the FBI later said broke no laws.
What this week’s revelations show is not any Russian collusion with Trump to influence the election but nearly the exact opposite: elements of the Obama government colluded with intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign—or at a minimum, to use information gathered by surveillance to attack and undermine the Trump campaign team’s transition plans for an orderly changing of the guard.
Opposition to Trump policies is to be expected, and foot-dragging by hostile bureaucrats was not unknown in the first year of the Reagan administration and other governmental changeovers. But there are legitimate and lawful means of opposition and illegitimate ones—even illegal ones, like the leaking of classified information. If the anti-Trump saboteurs inside government expect the American public and tens of millions of Trump supporters to tolerate organized, incipient treason against constitutional government, they are mistaken.
BTW, Trump ain't resigning.
Also, would WaPo have done this under Obama?
Link: WaPo's guide on how to leak documents
Are you seriously saying that the media didn't expose leaked information regularly under Obama?
You are like Hannity, ideology always TRUMPS facts.
(no message)
This is also known as the "Dark web", where drugs are pedaled, hit men are hired and human trafficking is promoted. What a bunch of hypocrites.
There are lots of evil dictators in the world. Putin is one of many. But Putin is the only one that tried to influence our recent election. Therefore, more Americans have started paying attention to him.
(no message)
arm Ukraine. Ohhhh, and heavens me, the hacking was an "Act of War." Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) most recently accused Russia of engaging in warfare. “I think this attack that we’ve experienced is a form of war, a form of war on our fundamental democratic principles,” Coleman said during a hearing this week at the House Homeland Security Committee.
At least you said that Russia "tried" to influence the election, bc there's no evidence that it actually did.