Tag Archives: Russia

What Security Does Europe Actually Have?

Posted on by

On Sunday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog wondering what protection against Russian invasion does Europe have from NATO or the European Union. It’s a very timely question.

The article notes:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused a number of European countries–probably all of them–to reconsider their military defense postures. If Russia attacks them, will they be able to resist? And whom can they count on to come to their aid?

Responses vary. Germany is talking about abandoning its post-WWII de-militarization. France, in Gaullist tradition, wants the EU to take the lead on security. Others rely on a presumed airtight NATO guarantee of military assistance.

Sweden is an interesting case. Sweden is not a member of NATO, although it has collaborated closely with NATO’s central command. Instead, Sweden has allied itself with the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, the U.K.

This is a portion of the interview with Björn Fägersten, head of the Europe program at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, included in the article:

Does the EU’s mutual defence clause have a similar effect to Nato’s Article 5?

Björn Fägersten: In a purely legal sense they are equivalent – in some ways the EU is a bit sharper. But on the other hand, the EU’s clause has a sub-clause that makes clear that it doesn’t affect member states’ individual choices on security policy, for instance for those countries that are neutral.

A key difference between the EU and Nato is that the EU has no real apparatus. Nato has a joint military headquarters, SHAPE, but the EU doesn’t have an equivalent.

Within the EU there are also expectations that Nato will be at the centre of European planning – most EU countries are members. In the EU’s Global Strategy from 2016 it is made clear that Nato is the cornerstone of the EU’s defence.

Looking to the future, many in the EU, not least Macron, have long spoken about the need for strategic autonomy, where Europe will take a more independent line in defence from the US. Last week Germany announced a huge increase in defence spending. How will that change the equation for Sweden?

BF: If in the long term Europe starts taking greater responsibility while the US takes the main responsibility for handling China, that would change Sweden’s calculation. Sweden would like there to be an American interest in its security, but if, for example, a new president was elected in the US in 2024 who had a more doubtful approach to European security, Sweden would be forced to rapidly reevaluate its defence strategy.

The article concludes:

Call me a cynical lawyer, but does “such action as it deems necessary” really obligate the U.S., or anyone else, to a full military response to Russian aggression in Europe? Might “such action” merely encompass economic sanctions in the event of a Russian invasion of, say, Lithuania?

I suppose it is best if Russia’s leaders assume that Article 5 represents an airtight mutual security pact, but it is easy to imagine a weaselly or mentally challenged president–or, perhaps, one who is uniquely focused on American self-interest–going back on 70 years of interpretation of Article 5 and more or less abandoning our European allies. No doubt that is something that they, too, are imagining.

Which I think is probably to the good. Donald Trump was right: it is long past time for powerful European countries, including Germany, to look to their own defense, even if in cooperation with us. And, of course, the more able they are to defend themselves against Russian aggression, the more likely they are to receive military help from their NATO allies, including us, should the time come.

There is value in working together and providing mutual aid, but there is also a lot of value in standing on your own two feet.

Stranded?

Posted on by

International relations are not always stable, and sometimes friendships and joint efforts can be difficult when circumstances change. The U.K Daily Mail posted an article today about what could become a very serious side effect of the current war in Ukraine.

The headline of the article reports:

Head of Russia’s space program posts sinister video threatening to LEAVE BEHIND US astronaut, 55, aboard International Space Station and only fly home his cosmonauts on March 30 because of Biden’s sanctions over Ukraine invasion

Yikes.

The article reports:

Russia’s space program has apparently threatened to leave an American astronaut aboard the International Space Station as it comes crashing down to Earth in a video shared by Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti.

Mark Vande Hei, a married 55-year-old father of two from Texas, is scheduled to return to Kazakhstan from the International Space Station (ISS) with two Russian cosmonauts aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft on March 30 after spending nearly a year on board.

But amid United States’ sanctions against Russia for the human rights violations it is committing in its siege of Ukraine, Dmitry Rogozin, head of the Russian space agency Roscosmos, has threatened to leave him in space.

The article concludes:

Then, after trading barbs with retired astronaut Scott Kelly over a separate video in which workers covered depictions of American and Japanese flags, Rogozin wrote in a now-deleted tweet: ‘Get off, you moron! Otherwise the death of the ISS will be on your conscience!’

But Kelly said the video leaving Vande Hei on the International Space Station went too far. 

‘It kind of enraged me that the country that we had been in this international partnership for 20 years would take the time to make a video to threaten to leave behind one of the crew members they are responsible for,’ he told the Wall Street Journal.

‘They agreed to be responsible for his safety, getting him to the space station and getting him home,’ Kelly explained. ‘For me, that kind of just crossed the line.’

Still, Rogozin has doubled down on his threats, claiming over the weekend that ‘illegal’ sanctions could cause the 500-ton ISS to crash down over Western countries.

He said: ‘The populations of other countries, especially those led by the “dogs of war,”  should think about the price of the sanctions against Roscosmos.’

Elon Musk has now offered to send his SpaceX rocket to rescue the US astronaut if the Russians abandon him, but NASA officials say they are confident Vande Hei will return as planned.

‘NASA continues working with Roscomos and our other international partners in Canada, Europe and Japan to maintain safe and continuous International Space Station operations.

‘On March 30, a Soyuz spacecraft will return as scheduled carrying NASA astronaut Mark Vande Hei and cosmonauts Pyotr Dubrov and Anton Shkaplerov back to Earth,’ it vowed.

‘Upon their return, Vande Hei will hold the American record for the longest single human spaceflight mission of 355 days.’

Hopefully, actions by Elon Musk will not be necessary, but this illustrates the folly of giving up the American space program and also illustrates the value of the free market and free enterprise.

Good News For America–Bad News For Russia

Posted on by

On March 10th, Newsmax reported that the Iran nuclear talks have stalled. The sticking point is that Russia is demanding protection from sanctions in response to its invasion of Iran.

The article reports:

Just days after reports a deal was close, diplomats are now signaling talks for a rewritten Iran nuclear deal have stalled due to Russia’s demand for sanctions protections amid the world response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Politico reported Thursday night.

“The talks seem to have stalled, primarily because of Russian demands,” International Crisis Group analyst Ali Vaez told Politico.

The article also notes:

Russia is leading talks with Iran, along with diplomats from China, France, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S., but those other parties are balking at the demand for sanctions relief, according to Politico.

An official from the West parties told Politico the accommodation cannot be made in talks that were designed to pull the U.S. and Iran back into the deal — not to give Russia more trade leverage.

“We’ve made it very clear,” U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters Thursday, “that the new Russia-related sanctions are wholly unrelated to the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].” 

“We also have no intention of offering Russia anything new or specific as it relates to the sanctions.”

The old Iran nuclear deal was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action under former President Barack Obama’s administration when current President Joe Biden was vice president. Many of the Obama administration officials are now working in the Biden administration.

Just for the record, it is not a good idea to make a deal with the world’s largest source of terrorist funding. We have seen that Iran did not follow previous agreements, and there are no indications that Iran would follow any new agreement no matter how generous it is. Short of sanctions on Iran (which the Biden administration would never do), at this point there is probably no way to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. If you understand the apocalyptic beliefs regarding the return of the Mahdi, that is a problem. There is a belief among some Muslims that if they create chaos, the Mahdi (their messiah) will return more quickly. Unfortunately, our State Department is obviously ignoring much of the history and beliefs of the militant Islamists who are currently ruling Iran.

Priorities?

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Daily Caller posted an article by Victor Davis Hanson that provides some perspective on the current war in Ukraine.

The article notes:

Thousands are dying from Russian missiles and bombs in the suburbs of Ukraine.

In response, the Biden administration’s climate change envoy, multimillionaire and private-jet-owning John Kerry, laments that Russian President Vladimir Putin might no longer remain his partner in reducing global warming.

“You’re going to lose people’s focus,” Kerry frets. “You’re going to lose big-country attention because they will be diverted, and I think it could have a damaging impact.”

“Impact”?

Did the global moralist Kerry mean by “impact” the over 650 Russian missiles that impacted Ukrainian buildings and tore apart children?

The article also asks the obvious question:

But how will the Biden administration square the circle of its own ideological war against oil and natural gas versus handing the advantage to our oil- and gas-producing enemies, as Russia invades Ukraine?

Or put another way, when selfish theory hits deadly reality, who loses? Answer: the American people.

President Joe Biden lifted U.S. sanctions on the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 pipeline designed to provide green Germany with loathsome, but life-saving, natural gas.

But first Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States. He has no problem with pipelines per se, just American ones.

While Biden doesn’t like the idea of Germany burning carbon fuel, or Putin reaping enormous profits from Berlin’s self-created dependency, or Germans importing liquified natural gas from America, Biden also does not like the idea of forcing German families to turn off their thermostats in mid-winter when there is Russian-fed war not far from Germany’s borders.

Here at home, Biden gets even crazier. As our enemies around the world reap huge profits from record high oil and gas prices, did Biden ask Alaska, North Dakota or Texas to ramp up production?

In other words, did he ask Americans to save fellow cash-strapped Americans from a self-created energy crisis, in the way he assured the Germans that during war reality trumps theory?

The article concludes:

Biden also has beseeched the once sanctioned, terrorist Iranian government. He wants Tehran to help us out by upping the very oil and gas production that America has tried to curtail for years. In return, Iran is demanding a new “Iran Deal” that will soon ensure the now petro-rich theocracy the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

On the eve of the Russian invasion, Biden begged Putin to pump even more oil to supplement its current Russian imports to the United States.

Did Putin see that surreal request as yet another sign of American appeasement that might greenlight his upcoming planned invasion? In Russian eyes, was it more proof of American weakness and craziness after the humiliating flight from Afghanistan?

Biden has blasted the human rights record of Saudi Arabia’s royal family. Now he is begging the monarchy to pump more of its despised carbon-spewing oil to make up for what his administration shut down at home. Is that why the Saudi royals refused to take his call?

The moral of Biden’s oil madness?

Elite ideology divorced from reality impoverishes people and can get them killed.

Because we have given up American energy independence (and the ability to supply Europe with energy), we are funding Russia’s war on Ukraine. Until our leaders are willing to acknowledge that fact, I don’t see the war in Ukraine ending or the war on American energy ending.

Pay Attention To The Pattern

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Federalist posted an article about the actions of private corporations regarding the war in Ukraine. Private corporations are denying services or products to Russia or to entitles connected to Russia. They are conducting their own private boycotts. Some of these companies are major corporation such as American Express, Apple, and Microsoft. That may seem like a good thing, but the pattern is troubling.

The article reports:

It could be tempting to cheer the move for targeting Russia’s authoritarian regime and condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked attacks on the people of Ukraine. But the actions by private companies against Russians are part of a larger swing by U.S. corporations to deny services to those whose opinions they deem unacceptable — and that’s exactly the kind of social credit system Russia is building to impose on its own people.

That’s what we saw in Canada when bank accounts and other assets of protesting truckers were frozen.

The article notes:

Punishment might include anything from slower internet speeds to being barred from flying or staying in certain hotels. There have also been reports of people being denied higher education and having their pets confiscated.

If you think comparisons between Russia and China’s authoritarian credit systems and the increasing dragnet in the United States are outlandish, just think about how Mastercard and American Express blocked donations to Americans whose beliefs about the 2020 election were found unacceptable, while Visa’s political action committee used the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021 to “temporarily suspend[] all political donations.” Paypal, Venmo, and Shopify all went after people who were supposedly involved in the riot.

A friend of mine had her Paypal account terminated because she used a credit card to buy a hamburger in Washington on the weekend of January 6th. She did not go near the Capitol–she went back to her hotel room after the rally, but her Paypal account was still canceled because her credit card company reported that she had made a transaction in Washington that weekend. This is not the America I grew up in.

The article concludes:

We shouldn’t cheer U.S. firms for appointing themselves the arbiters of who deserves to participate in our economy (and by extension, our society). If they can do it to Russia, they can do it to you.

But we also shouldn’t cheer such actions because they move us one step closer to blurring the line between ourselves and the authoritarian tyrants we purport to denounce. If we defeat Russia or China by making our differences unrecognizable, we’ve already lost.

A Reasonable Perspective On Ukraine

Posted on by

I haven’t written a lot about Ukraine because I think there is a lot of false news floating around about Ukraine and I don’t want to be misled by something that looks real but isn’t. However, I trust the Center for Security Policy, so I am posted excerpts from their article on Ukraine. The article was posted on March 3rd.

The article reports:

The courageous leader of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, faces some harsh choices. But so does Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. Russia has taken many casualties, with more than 5,000 soldiers killed already. The Russian currency has all but collapsed and there is deep-seated anger in Russia against Putin and his war. Putin needs to wrap this war up fast, or he could be replaced by his adversaries in Russia.

Both Russia and Ukraine have asked for security guarantees –from NATO. Sorting out the NATO relationship is all important.

…A solution covers four main issues. The first is the future of the Donbass area; the second is NATO membership for Ukraine; the third is the Crimea; and the fourth involves nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the easiest solution is Donbass, which the Minsk Accords saw as becoming autonomous regions of Ukraine. Since Russia has now recognized the two breakaway areas (Donetsk and Luhansk) as independent states, it is more difficult now to find a way to a solution. Nevertheless, it is possible. One formula would be for the two breakaways to remain independent only while their status as autonomous Ukrainian areas is worked out, at which point it would be politically and economically expedient for them to become autonomous parts of Ukraine.

NATO, however, is a bigger issue for the Russians and for Ukraine. Ukraine believes, rightly or wrongly, that NATO guarantees their security (even though the support they have received from NATO has not achieved that goal at all). Russia believes NATO in Ukraine is a major threat to Russian security. How to solve this problem?

The article notes that the easiest solution to end the war would be for Ukraine to give up on the idea of joining NATO. That would solve at least part of the problem. Is that the problem or is the quest to reunite the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the real goal? I don’t know.

The article continues:

A straightforward solution is for NATO to give Ukraine a special type of membership whereby NATO would come to Ukraine’s help if it is attacked. But to assuage Russia, NATO would not put any troops in Ukraine nor any NATO bases, and would not try to convert Ukraine’s military infrastructure into the NATO system. NATO, of course, is not directly part of the Russia-Ukraine negotiations, but some sort of formula can be agreed (no NATO bases, infrastructure etc) in Ukraine, leaving aside Ukraine asking for special status under Article 5 (collective security) in the NATO treaty.

If NATO membership for Ukraine is actually the issue, that would be a possible solution.

The article concludes:

European leaders, especially Emmanuel Macron of France, have tried to find a way forward, which is more than can be said of Joe Biden, who has tried to exploit the Ukraine mess for domestic political reasons. Instead of Macron visiting Putin, maybe he should stop off in Washington and see if he can turn around thinking in the White House.

Meanwhile, Americans need to be very careful about believing what they are hearing from the mainstream media.

 

While We Were All Watching Ukraine…

Posted on by

On Friday, The New York Post posted the following headline:

Biden on verge of making worst deal ever with Iran

The article reminds us of some recent history regarding Iran and nuclear weapons:

The Obama White House claimed the Iran deal guaranteed the most intrusive inspections the world had ever known, but only Israel’s Mossad found the evidence Iran was cheating — a secret nuclear weapons archive that the mullahs kept hidden before, during and after negotiating the Iran deal. That archive led inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, to at least four previously unknown sites inside Iran. At three of them, the inspectors found traces of uranium.

…Russia has been a leading opponent of the IAEA’s probe in Iran for years. Since Moscow regularly breaks its own international treaty obligations — whether in the use of chemical weapons or the war crimes we see today in Ukraine — Russian diplomats work overtime to shield rogue nations like Iran and Syria from accountability.

The new deal takes Moscow’s side — flouting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, lifting sanctions and legitimizing Iran’s nuclear program without first demanding a full accounting of previous and current violations. Put simply, it is an agreement knowingly built on deceit that will encourage other authoritarian regimes to violate their international commitments.

Another important change since 2015: We know so much more about the ways in which key Iranian banks and companies finance terrorism. The Obama administration told Congress that nothing in the Iran deal precluded America from imposing terrorism sanctions on Iran. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, took that promise to heart and directed the Trump administration to impose sanctions on affiliates of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Today, the Central Bank of Iran, the National Iranian Oil Company and hundreds more entities are subject to US terrorism sanctions — not nuclear sanctions — due to indisputable evidence showing their involvement in financing terrorism. To lift sanctions on these banks and firms without any indication of behavioral change will be unprecedented. The deal will directly subsidize the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations — a win for another Russian client state, Syria, as well.

Hopefully this treaty will never get past the Senate, but that doesn’t mean the Biden administration won’t abide by it anyway. We currently have a lawless administration and an impossibility of impeachment due to a Democrat congress and a downright scary line of succcession–Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Grassley, Antony J. Blinken, etc.

Pray for the mid-terms and hope they won’t be too late.

The Story Behind The Story

Posted on by

On Monday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article with a rather different viewpoint on the origins and purpose of the current war in Ukraine. It is a long, involved article, so I suggest you follow the link to read the entire article. I will try to provide some  highlights.

The article notes:

Current CIA Director William “Bill” Burns was the former ambassador to Russia and Jordan.  Bill Burns had a 33-year career at the State Department under both Republican and Democratic presidents and speaks fluent Russian. If the people in the background of Joe Biden wanted an intelligence operative to trigger a specific result from Russia, there’s no one more strategically perfect for the job than CIA Director Bill Burns.

The article by Beinart (Peter Beinart on substack {SEE HERE}) is mainly focused on pointing out the irreconcilable nature of Joe Biden implying Ukraine could join NATO, while his own CIA Director has a history of giving serious warnings emphasizing the “brightest of all red lines” about that specific point.

[…]  “Two years ago, Burns wrote a memoir entitled, The Back Channel. It directly contradicts the argument being proffered by the administration he now serves. In his book, Burns says over and over that Russians of all ideological stripes—not just Putin—loathed and feared NATO expansion. He quotes a memo he wrote while serving as counselor for political affairs at the US embassy in Moscow in 1995. ‘Hostility to early NATO expansion,” it declares, “is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.”

On the question of extending NATO membership to Ukraine, Burns’ warnings about the breadth of Russian opposition are even more emphatic. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” he wrote in a 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” (read more)

The article reports the following:

The CIA Director is crystal clear that Russia would be seriously triggered about any prospect of Ukraine entering NATO.

Yet, in December of 2021, the exact same time when U.S. backchannel intelligence was being shared with China about Russian troop movements on the border with Ukraine, Joe Biden was telling Ukraine that membership in NATO was in their hands.

The war in Ukraine now can be conveniently blamed for economic woes, the high price of gasoline, the empty supermarket shelves, other supply chain problems, etc.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article.

A Solution That Is Being Ignored

Posted on by

On Sunday, Townhall posted an article suggesting how President Biden could end the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The article suggested following some of the example set by President Reagan.

The article reports:

President Reagan famously ramped up military spending. He increased the defense budget by over 40 percent, and that included the creation of his space program called SDI. The media mocked it and nicknamed it the Star Wars program and relentlessly attempted to brand Reagan as a dunce who was a former actor who knew nothing about foreign policy. We know in hindsight that the Soviets were enraged that the U.S. could own space and potentially shoot their weapons right out of the sky with the SDI program. In response, the Soviets ramped up their spending on similar programs. 

But, Soviet money didn’t grow on trees.

A lot of the money grew, so to speak, in the wheat fields of Russia. Wheat has long been in the top three biggest Soviet exports and President Reagan unleashed our farmers to produce grain. 

We need to end the restrictions on American energy production.

The article continues:

Another aspect of Reagan’s Cold War strategy was taking the reins off of American oil producers and ramping up our oil production. It not only gave us a great advantage to produce our own energy here, it also dramatically lowered the price of oil on the world market. Oil was and still is Russia’s top export. 

In addition to domestic production, Reagan worked behind the scenes to encourage Middle Eastern oil producers to increase the supply on the world market. The Soviets took a HUGE hit in the pocketbook when their oil suddenly became worth a fraction of what it was when Jimmy Carter was president. 

President Reagan also waged a PR war against the Soviets. 

The most famous moment was Reagan’s speech at the Brandenburg gate when he told the Soviets to tear down the wall that was separating the free people in Western Europe from those imprisoned in the oppressive communist system on the other side of the wall and razor wire. 

Reagan also sent funding and arms to freedom movements around the world that were resisting the Soviet Communist takeover of countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. 

And it worked. The USSR is on the ash heap of history. 

If we do not learn the lesson of President Reagan vs the Soviet Union, America will wind up on the ash heap of history. Unfortunately, the Biden administration is racing toward that heap.

Does This Make Sense To Anyone?

Posted on by

President Biden’s energy policies have been a disaster for America and for the world. We are no longer exporting enough fuel to Europe to counter the influence of the Russian oil and natural gas sales. We are no longer a net exporter of natural gas and oil, which impacts our economy. The closing of the Keystone XL Pipeline put a lot of people out of work and shifted the transport of oil to methods that are not as environmentally safe as a pipeline. The unscientific focus on climate change has destroyed the American economy and made the world less safe. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has chosen to double down on their energy policy rather than make the necessary course correction.

On Thursday, Breitbart posted an article illustrating the problem.

The article reports:

On Thursday’s broadcast of “CBS Evening News,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken responded to a question on whether the United States will cut off purchases of oil and gas from Russia over its invasion of Ukraine by stating that we’re trying to ensure “that we inflict maximum pain on Russia” while at the same time, “minimizing any of the pain to us.”

Host Norah O’Donnell asked, “Russia’s economy’s fueled by gas, and the U.S. is a consumer. So, would the U.S. consider cutting off oil and gas purchases from Russia?”

Blinken responded, “Well, what we’re doing, Norah, across the board, is making sure that we inflict maximum pain on Russia for what President Putin has done, while minimizing any of the pain to us.”

What Secretary of State Blinken did not say (for obvious political reasons) was that because America has stopped utilizing its own energy sources, we are financing the Russian attack on Ukraine. That is a disgrace.

Accidental Or Intentional ?

Posted on by

The way things are going here, the difference between a conspiracy theory and the news is about six weeks.

On Friday, The Patriot Daily Wire reported that prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine the Biden administration had sought help from China to prevent that invasion. In itself, that is not a problem, but a look at the bigger picture illustrates something that is a problem.

The article reports:

In hopes of securing assistance in deterring a Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration was reduced to providing China with military intelligence that Beijing in turn gave to Russia.

U.S. officials learned in December that China had provided American intelligence on Russian military activity to Moscow, The New York Times reported.

American officials believed that if any world leader could prove capable of convincing Russian President Vladimir Putin to rethink his invasion plans, it was Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Russia and China have strengthened their ties in recent years.

The Biden administration had sought to convince China that its international image would be damaged by a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

In a November meeting with Chinese Ambassador Qin Gang, American officials said the harsh economic sanctions Russia would incur would hurt the Chinese economy as well.

Successive attempts to influence Qin against Russia proved unsuccessful, with Qin asserting that Russia had legitimate security concerns in the region.

American officials also shared intelligence with the Chinese showing the Russian military buildup around Ukraine.

In addition to providing the information to the Kremlin, American officials believe China told Russia that the U.S. was attempting to sow discord between the two nations and pledged not to interfere in Russia’s plans in Ukraine.

We are about to find out how useless NATO and the United Nations really are. Why are we funding these organizations?

 

Avoiding A Possible Solution

Posted on by

When America cut her energy production, the price of oil and gas soared. When the price of oil and gas soared, the amount of money going into Russia increased dramatically. Russian gas and oil money are now being used to fund the invasion of Ukraine. So what is the best way to end that invasion? Cut off the money.

On Friday, One America News reported:

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged NATO leaders to take immediate action using the SWIFT international payments system to impact Russia’s President Putin and his regime, his office said following a call with NATO leaders on Friday.

Johnson urged leaders to take immediate action with SWIFT “to inflict maximum pain on President Putin and his regime,” his office said on Friday.

Not allowing Russia to use SWIFT would definitely stop the flow of money into Russia.

On Thursday, The Hill reported:

President Biden on Thursday defended maintaining Russia’s access to an international messaging system for banks despite pressure from Ukrainian leaders.

The U.S., United Kingdom and European Union on Thursday announced strict new penalties on the Russian economy, financial institutions and influential elites close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. But the Western allies did not bar Moscow from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), even after Ukrainian government officials urged them to do so Thursday morning.

“It is always an option, but right now that’s not the position that the rest of Europe wishes to take,” Biden told reporters after announcing new sanctions Thursday.

…The Biden administration also announced plans to impose sanctions on individuals and entities in Belarus, accusing the nation of supporting and facilitating Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Banks across the world use SWIFT to finalize transactions and transfers. Cutting Russia off from SWIFT would make it incredibly difficult for its banks to operate efficiently, but could also wreak economic havoc for European nations who depend on Russian oil and natural gas exports.

I would like to note that the European nations would not be dependent on Russian oil if the Biden administration had continued President Trump’s policy of American energy independence. There were a lot of bad decisions made by the Biden administration that led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

This Would Be Funny If It Were Not So Serious

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Conservative Treehouse posted the following headline:

Russian Military Drills Conclude, Troop Withdrawal Begins, White House Proclaims the Stunning Strength and Brilliant Strategic Thinking of Joe Biden Averted Thermonuclear War

The article reports:

The previously planned Russian training exercises [Announcement Here] have been completed in Belarus – close to neighboring Ukraine. Today those troops began returning to their places of regular deployment as reported by the Russian Ministry of Defense in Moscow.

As a result, the Biden manufactured ‘wag the dog‘ scenario, a fabricated ‘Russia invading Ukraine‘ premise by the White House, U.S. Dept of State, Pentagon and intelligence apparatus, needs to come to an end quickly.

After pretending that Russia was going to invade Ukraine in an effort to manufacture a political win out of thin air, Joe Biden will declare today he saved the world.

The article concludes:

Yes, you can thank me in the comments section for saving Ukraine from the United States CIA construct and averting war. [ LOL ] But seriously, that inflated sense of CTH importance is less silly than Biden’s claims today. That’s how stupid this entire thing has been.

Yes, the White House is exactly that desperate.

The press is capable of creating the threat of war and capable of eliminating the threat of war (giving credit where they choose). That is what we have just witnessed.

 

The Consequences Of Giving Up Energy Independence

Posted on by

In October 2021, I posted an article about the potential for Russia to use its supply of natural gas and its pipeline to Europe as a political weapon. This was not possible under the Trump administration because under President Trump America had achieved energy independence. America was capable of exporting natural gas to Europe as needed. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

On Wednesday, The Daily Caller reported the following:

The flow of natural gas through a key Russian-controlled pipeline suddenly stopped Wednesday as tensions continue to increase between Russia and the West.

The Yamal-Europe pipeline’s liquified natural gas (LNG) flows, which are operated by Russian state-run firm Gazprom and have usually been pumped westward from Russia to Germany through Poland, were halted early Wednesday, European data showed, according to Reuters. The sudden stoppage reportedly represented a setback after leaders expected the pipeline to return to its normal flow pattern.

In December 2021, Gazprom slowed the pipeline’s gas flows, which represent 10% of the region’s supply, and the company reversed the flow direction from westward to eastward. The sudden reversal sent natural gas prices, which had already spiked amid a European energy crisis, even higher.

Gazprom and the Russian government said that the alteration was a “commercial” decision and that customers would continue to receive purchased gas. But geopolitical tensions between Russia and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have increased over the last several weeks, potentially putting Europe’s energy supply at risk.

Gazprom is located in St. Petersburg, Russia. It is the largest publicly-listed natural gas company in the world and the largest company in Russia by revenue. Does anyone actually believe that Gazprom does not do the bidding of the Russian government? Does anyone actually believe that Gazprom would be in business if they did not adhere to the wishes of the Russian government?

The article concludes:

On Jan. 25, the White House announced it would help facilitate greater non-Russian natural gas flows into Europe. Such imports would come from North Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the U.S.

“We are collaborating with governments and market operators on supply of additional volumes of natural gas to Europe from diverse sources across the globe,” President Joe Biden said in a joint statement with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Jan. 28. “LNG in the short-term can enhance security of supply while we continue to enable the transition to net zero emissions.”

Gazprom didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

This Is Not Going To Help Me Sleep Nights!

Posted on by

On Thursday, NewsMax reported that China, Russia and Iran will hold joint naval drills on Friday.

The article reports:

The “2022 Marine Security Belt” exercise will take place in the north of the Indian Ocean and is the third joint naval drill between the three countries, Mostafa Tajoldin added.

Since coming to office last June, Iran’s hardline President Ebrahim Raisi has pursued a “look east” policy to deepen ties with China and Russia. Tehran joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in September, a central Asian security body led by Beijing and Moscow.

…Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian visited China last week and Iran’s president was meeting his Russian counterpart in Moscow on Thursday.

China, Russia and Iran started joint naval drills in 2019, and will continue them in the future, Tajoldin said.

“The purpose of this drill is to strengthen security and its foundations in the region, and to expand multilateral cooperation between the three countries to jointly support world peace, maritime security and create a maritime community with a common future,” the Iranian official told ISNA.

Both navies from Iran’s armed forces and Revolutionary Guards will take part in the drills, which include various tactical exercises such as rescuing a burning vessel, releasing a hijacked vessel, and shooting at air targets at night.

When America has a weak President, bad things happen.

This Is Not A Surprise To Anyone Who Has Been Paying Attention

Posted on by

One America News is reporting the following today:

U.S. President Joe Biden’s global energy security adviser said on Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin is getting close to using natural gas as a political tool if Russia is holding back fuel exports to Europe as it suffers an energy crunch.

“I think we are getting close to that line if Russia indeed has the gas to supply and it chooses not to, and it will only do so if Europe accedes to other demands that are completely unrelated,” Amos Hochstein, Biden’s adviser, told reporters, when asked if Putin was using gas as a weapon.

Hochstein said gas prices in Europe have been driven higher not just by events in the region but also by a dry season in China that has reduced energy output from hydropower and increased global competition for natural gas.

Still, while a number of factors have led to the European gas crisis, Russia is best placed to come to the aid of Europe, he said.

“There is no doubt in my mind, and the (International Energy Agency) has itself validated, that the only supplier that can really make a big difference for European energy security at the moment for this winter is Russia,” Hochstein said.

He said Russia can increase upstream production of gas, and should do it quickly through existing pipelines.

Under the Trump administration, America was approaching the point where its natural gas exports would be a counter to the energy blackmail Russia has historically practiced. Ending America’s energy independence will be looked on in the future as one of the biggest mistakes made by the Biden administration.

I Think Most Of Us Suspected This

Posted on by

Just the News posted an article today about the news story that was circulating during the 2020 Presidential campaign that the Russians had put a bounty on American soldiers and were paying the Afghani soldiers to kill Americans. The media questioned the fact that President Trump had not placed sanctions on Russia for those actions and declared that the President was soft on Russia because he was Putin’s puppet. Well, the truth eventually does come out.

The article at Just the News reports:

On Thursday, the leaders of President Biden’s intelligence agencies declared they held little confidence in a New York Times’ story from last June that claimed Russia put bounties on American troops in Afghanistan.

It was the latest setback for the famous newspaper, which has seen its reporting on the now-debunked Russia collusion scandal be eviscerated by the FBI and its hit podcast series Caliphate retracted. 

Ashley Rindsberg, author of “The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times’ Misreporting, Fabrications and Distortions Radically Alter History,” said Thursday’s setback follows a decades-long pattern of journalism failures. He questioned what the Times will do next with the Afghanistan fallout.

The article notes that there is a history of this sort of creating a false narrative and being slow to change the narrative once the truth is discovered:

“That’s what’s happened time and again: the big story break, and there’s a lot of hoopla, and there’s a lot of coverage, and the narrative gets cemented. And when the story turns out to be false, or mistaken, or what have you, there’s either a very small correction that’s printed at the bottom of the article that very few people will pay attention to, or nothing at all,” he said. “So I think in this case, we’ll see what happens, and hopefully the Times will do the right thing.”

I can pretty much guarantee that if you are still depending on the mainstream media as your primary news source you are either misinformed or uninformed or both.

More Of The Same

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner is reporting today that the United Nations has placed China, Cuba, and Russia on the U.N. Human Rights Council. They will become sitting member on that Council as of January 1.

The article reports:

On Jan. 1, China, Cuba, and Russia will become members of the U.N. Human Rights Council. Yes, China, which has imprisoned 2 million of its Uighur citizens in gulag reeducation camps, sterilized thousands, and used the rest for de facto slave labor, is donning the U.N. human rights mantle. Cuba, a dystopia tolerated by the Western media elite for its creaking art deco façade, sees many of its best and brightest choose to brave shark-infested waters in search of better lives. Vladimir Putin’s Russia wages a very thinly veiled war on all who question the Kremlin. Whether it’s Novichok nerve agents and Alexei Navalny, open windows and journalists, or gang attacks on gays, Putin’s Russia despises human rights.

It is not simply alarming that these governments are joining the Human Rights Council, but that so few governments and organizations are bothered by it.

The article concludes:

But the challenges go beyond human rights. In the face of repeated and successively increasing Iranian breaches of nuclear arms agreements, the U.N. sits idle. In the face of escalating Chinese circumvention of North Korean sanctions, the U.N. sits idle. U.N. officials like to blame the U.N. Security Council’s permanent members for these issues. But the truth is that the U.N. itself is to blame. Its leaders, now and before, have failed to address the broken structures that sit at the heart of their organization. They should act. But they won’t. They’re happy instead to make speeches and then return to the extensive and expensive budgets afforded to all U.N. staffers. It is extraordinary, for example, that so much of the U.N.’s money continues to be spent in New York City and Geneva rather than out in the field where it might, just might, save lives and make the world a slightly better place.

The U.N. doesn’t deserve many birthday presents. Not this year, at least. And likely not next year.

Unfortunately the United Nations has chosen to ignore the Preamble to its Charter, which states:

  • to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  • to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

When an organization betrays the charter that formed it, it is time for the organization to disband. The United Nations’ actions in recent years have done nothing to promote peace, freedom, or human rights. It’s time for them to go.

 

Disturbing News From The Middle East

Posted on by

Most of the world wants peace in the Middle East. President Trump has been moving in that direction by normalizing relations between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors. However, not everyone in the region is in favor of peace. To some nations, war serves a purpose–it distracts from internal problems and can be a unifying force, it stimulates the economy by creating a demand for planes and weapons, and it often will strengthen the leadership position of whoever is in charge of the country fighting the war.

The United States Naval Institute News (USNI) News reported on Wednesday that two Russian Navy ships were seen in the Mediterranean Sea escorting an Iranian-flagged oil tanker to Syria.

The article reports:

Last week, the Iranian-flagged oil tanker Samah entered the Mediterranean Sea via the Suez Canal. After a few miles, the 900-foot-long ship stopped reporting its position and destination. Evidence suggests the ship sailed to Syria, escorted by two Russian Navy ships, including a destroyer.

Russia’s role in protecting the shipment may change the dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean. In the past, Iranian tankers sailing to Syria have been intercepted by the U.K. Royal Navy. The Russian Navy escort could be viewed as a precautionary step, raising the political and military risks of any intervention by the Royal Navy or others.

Last July, an Iranian tanker destined for Syria, Adrian Darya-1, was seized by U.K. Royal Marines off Gibraltar. The British accused Iran of supplying Syria with oil in contravention of European Union sanctions. Iran quickly seized a British-flagged tanker in a likely retaliatory move. Eventually, in September, Adrian Darya-1 was released by a local court with the assurance that it would not deliver its oil to Syria – but days later, it transshipped its oil in Syrian waters.

The article concludes:

The Russian Navy has hinted it would be more active in escorting merchant ships in the region. After the Iranian delivery, the Russian Navy has publicized an exercise off Syria, meant to protect “smooth passage of civilian ships.” A simulated attack by a submarine was dealt with by Vice Admiral Kulakov, which may be intended to send a message to allies and potential adversaries alike that Russia will actively prevent any interference with the Iranian shipments.

Russia now maintains a permanent squadron in the Mediterranean, based in Tartus, Syria. This includes submarines and large warships. If Moscow decides the Iran-Syria oil run is now a regular mission for the Russian Navy, it’s set to complicate enforcement of international sanctions which could otherwise shut down one of the Syrian regime’s vital lifelines.

Russia has always wanted a ‘warm water port.’ It looks as if they now have one.

The Cover-Up Continues

Posted on by

John Solomon has been one of the most reliable voices reporting on the misuse of federal government agencies to spy on the Trump campaign and transition teams. He now writes at  “Just the News” because his reporting did not fit the political narrative at “The Hill.”

Yesterday John Solomon posted an article at Just the News detailing the ongoing cover-up of the spying on President Trump.

The article reports:

Earlier this year, the infamous dossier author Christopher Steele revealed he had destroyed nearly all the records detailing his dirt-digging on Donald Trump and Russia.

“They no longer exist,” Steele told a British court.

Now comes word that Steele’s primary and longtime contact inside the Obama State Department, Jonathan Winer, also destroyed records of the former British MI6 agent’s contacts inside that federal agency, including many of the 100-plus unsolicited intelligence reports Steele provided the Obama administration.

…Winer apparently destroyed the records at Steele’s request, the report said.

“After Steele’s memos were published in the press in January 2017, Steele asked Winer to make note of having them, then either destroy all the earlier reports Steele had sent the Department of State or return them to Steele, out of concern that someone would be able to reconstruct his source network,” the committee’s report released last month stated.

The consequence of the document destruction appears to have been real. “Department of State was able to produce for the Committee, from their archives, many Steele memos from 2015 and some from 2016, but most of his reports from 2014 are missing,” the committee noted.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. The question that comes to mind is, “Why did they destroy the records if they weren’t doing anything wrong?”

The article concludes:

Destroyed documents. Faulty memories. Foreign influence. The State Department continues to grow as a more important part of the investigation into the Russia investigators.

You can read Steele’s British testimony here.

You can read the Senate intelligence report account on Winer here.

This entire operation makes Watergate look like kindergarten.

When Protocol Is Ignored For Political Reasons

Posted on by

Andrew McCarthy posted an article today at The National Review stating that during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Trump campaign was never given a briefing to warn them about the possibility of Russian interference in their campaign. There are a number of reasons why that is important.

The article reports:

My column over the weekend was about the Obama-Biden administration’s exploitation of the government’s intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus to investigate Donald Trump, who was then the opposition Republican Party’s presidential candidate. The essence of this investigation is palpable from an August 2016 incident: The FBI covertly surveilled Trump by capitalizing on the U.S. intelligence community’s practice of providing a counterintelligence and security briefing to the nominees of the two major political parties.

The exploitation of executive power to monitor the opposition party’s presidential candidate is a Watergate-level abuse of power. That is why Obama and FBI apologists have steadfastly refused to cop to it.

A major element of their story is that the faux briefing given to Trump was actually a defensive briefing. We are to believe its purpose was to warn Trump that his campaign could be infiltrated by covert agents working for Russia.

The significance of the “defensive briefing” canard, and the importance of refuting it, still seems lost on many of Trump’s Russiagate defenders.

Political spying is an impeachable offense. Democrats have countered with the ridiculous “defensive briefing” yarn because they understand this. As I demonstrate in Ball of Collusion, the decision not to give Trump a defensive briefing is ironclad proof that he was the target of the investigation, and therefore that the Obama-Biden administration was guilty of political spying.

That “defensive briefing” lie should now be put to rest, thanks to the recently declassified FBI report about the session. Yes, one big takeaway is that the FBI used the “briefing” as an investigative operation. But don’t miss the forest for the trees. Even on its own deceptive terms, the faux briefing was neither portrayed nor conducted by the FBI as defensive to warn the Trump campaign; it was a standard counterintelligence and security briefing for presidential candidates.

The article concludes:

Subsequently, the AG explicitly distinguished a “defensive briefing” from the August briefing Pientka gave to Trump: “I have been told . . . that a lesser kind of briefing, a security briefing that generally discusses, you know, general threats apparently was given to the campaign in August.” That is different, Barr explained, from a “defensive briefing . . . where you are told . . . you are a specific target” of a foreign intelligence service.

Donald Trump and his campaign were never given a defensive briefing to warn of Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. Clearly, that is because the Obama-Biden administration and the FBI baselessly theorized that Trump was the one conspiring with Russia. In the Russiagate narrative, as a candidate and then as the president, Trump was the perp, not the victim. They weren’t looking to warn him. They were looking to nail him — or, at least, to persuade the country that he just might be a Russian mole.

So where are we now? Because of irresponsible reporting by the American media, half of the country believes that President Trump is a Russian agent. Half of the country has no idea of the abuses of the intelligence community that went on during the Obama administration. Unfortunately it is likely that none of the people responsible for the abuse will be held accountable–holding them accountable would further divide an already divided country. Therefore, we can expect that the next time a Democrat is in the White House, this behavior will be repeated. There are some in power who are trying to prevent that from happening by holding the guilty parties accountable, but I doubt their chances of success. The principle that is responsible for where we are now is that in a representative republic, the people are responsible for the government they have. Until more people pay attention, we will have massive corruption in both liberal politics and the media. Hopefully more people will begin to pay attention before it is too late.

 

The Five Questions That Will Determine The Presidential Election In November

Posted on by

The New York Sun posted an article yesterday by Conrad Black. The article lists the five things that will determine who wins the presidential election in November.

These are the five things listed in the article:

    • Can the President override the Democratic press’s thunderous campaign to terrorize the country over the coronavirus?

    • Can the president successfully connect Vice President Biden’s campaign to the hooligans, anti-white racists, and urban guerrillas who effectively are being encouraged by the corrupt Democratic mayors of many of the nation’s largest cities?

    • Will the economic recovery and the decline in the unemployment generated by the COVID-19 shutdown continue at its recent pace and strengthen the economy as a pro-Trump electoral argument?

    • Will the Republicans make adequately clear to the country the authoritarian and Marxist implications of the Biden-Sanders unity document?

    • Will special counsel John Durham indict senior members of the Obama Administration over their handling of the spurious allegation of collusion between Donald Trump and the Russian government in the 2016 election and Justice Department violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and how will Mr. Biden himself come through it?

The coronavirus has given us some insight into what unbridled government authority can do. Some of the regulations put in place by governors and mayors were based on common sense–things your mother told you when you were young like wash you hands, cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze, and don’t hang around with sick people. Other regulations were simply power grabs to prevent Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights–churches in Nevada restricted to a lower percentage of occupancy than casinos, protests to open businesses criticized and shut down while other protests (that included looting and riots) were allowed to continue. We have had a taste of out-of-control government in recent months. A vote for Joe Biden and whoever he chooses as his running mate will give us more of the same. Joe Biden has already stated that he wants to reassemble the Obama team–the group that gave us anemic economic growth, Benghazi where our ambassador was murdered followed by lying about it on television, ISIS, politicization of the Justice Department, and too many other scandals to mention.

The voters will choose. We need to pray for wisdom in voting and an honest election.

This Isn’t Politics–It’s Illegal Activity

Posted on by

Yesterday Just the News posted an article about the information found in some recently declassified emails. The one thing we are learning from the recent release of newly declassified documents is that the documents were classified solely to protect those in the intelligence community who were breaking the law.

The article reports:

Donald Trump was president for only 24 hours when then-FBI supervisor Peter Strzok sent an angry missive to his boss. A colleague had given the new White House a counterintelligence briefing and hadn’t consulted on how to use the meeting to further the Russia collusion investigation.

“I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted],” Strzok wrote on Jan. 21, 2017, a day into the new Trump presidency after learning fellow agent Jennifer Boone had given the White House a briefing without his knowledge.

“I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters there,” Strzok added in his email to Assistant Director for Counterintelligence William Priestap. “This brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing.

The article continues with the relevant timeline:

“When Strzok found out those briefings were already conducted without his knowledge, he got upset. Since the CI briefings apparently were no longer available as a subterfuge, soon thereafter Deputy Director McCabe reached out to Flynn directly to set up an interview appointment,” he added. “Director Comey admitted later they took advantage of the disorganization of a new administration to avoid the protocols that would normally be in place to control access to senior WH personnel like Flynn.”

The article concludes:

“Because Flynn was expected to attend the first such briefing for members of the Trump campaign on August 17, 2016, the FBI viewed that briefing as a possible opportunity to collect information potentially relevant to the Crossfire Hurricane and Flynn investigations,” Horowitz wrote. “We found no evidence that the FBI consulted with Department leadership or ODNI officials about this plan.”

Tom Fitton, the head of Judicial Watch, said the FBI’s conduct during the investigation reeked of politics.

“These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he stepped foot in the Oval Office,” Fitton said.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is becoming obvious that many of the people in the intelligence community during the Obama administration considered themselves above the law and had no problem violating the civil rights of American citizens. Those people belong in jail. Hopefully that will happen someday soon.

Slowly The Truth Becomes Available To The Public

Posted on by

Based on the information that has already come out, many Americans (at least those who don’t depend on the mainstream media for their news) believe that there was a soft coup attempt on President Trump that began immediately after he was elected. As information is made public from various investigations, this is becoming more obvious.

The Daily Caller posted an article yesterday about some of the latest information to come out.

The article reports:

  • The Senate Judiciary Committee released a newly declassified FBI document Friday showing that a New York Times report about contacts between Trump associates and Russian intelligence was riddled with errors. 
  • Peter Strzok, who served as FBI deputy chief of counterintelligence, spotted 14 errors in the Times story, published on Feb. 14, 2017. 
  • Strzok also critiqued Christopher Steele, saying that the dossier author was unable to judge the reliability of his network of sources.

The article continues:

An FBI document released Friday details at least 14 inaccuracies in a New York Times report from early 2017 that leveled shocking allegations of Trump associates’ contacts with Russian intelligence officers.

The document shows then-FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok’s comments on a Feb. 14, 2017 article entitled “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence.”

Written by journalists Michael Schmidt, Mark Mazzetti and Matt Apuzzo, the story cited four current and former American officials who said that U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies had intercepted call records showing that Trump associates had contacts with Russian intelligence in the year prior to the election.

Strzok, who was the lead investigator on the Trump investigation, spotted 14 errors in the article.

The article concludes:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, who released the FBI documents on Friday, said in a press release that Strzok’s annotations on the Times article “are devastating in that they are an admission that there was no reliable evidence that anyone from the Trump Campaign was working with Russian Intelligence Agencies in any form.”

James Comey, the former FBI director, criticized the Times report shortly after he was fired in May 2017. He told the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 7, 2017, that the story was “almost entirely” inaccurate.

The Times stood by the story despite the pushback from Comey.

“The original sources could not immediately be reached after Mr. Comey’s remarks, but in the months since the article was published, they have indicated that they believed the account was solid,” the paper said in a statement following Comey’s testimony.

The New York Times was driving the narrative that President Trump was a Russian agent. Their reporting was inaccurate from the beginning. Unfortunately, there are many Americans who still believe the fiction The New York Times was publishing. That is one of many causes for the divisiveness that we are currently seeing in America.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once stated, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

Leadership Matters

Posted on by

Just the News posted an article today about Rod Rosenstein’s testimony before Congress.

The article reports:

Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that he was unaware that an FBI field office had recommended that Gen. Michael Flynn be dropped from its Crossfire Hurricane investigation, with the former deputy attorney general agreeing that it would have “mattered” had he been aware of that directive.

Rosenstein was asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham if he knew that “in January of 2017, the FBI field office said, ‘we recommend General Flynn be removed'” from the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

“I did not,” Rosenstein responded.

“Would that have mattered?” Graham asked, to which Rosenstein responded: “Yes.

Maybe I don’t understand the workings of the Department of Justice, but that seems odd to me. Shouldn’t he have known?

The article concludes:

Noting the procedural errors found within the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Rosenstein told senators in prepared remarks that the Justice Department “must take remedial action” against any misconduct it uncovers within its ranks, a bracing statement made in reference to investigative reviews that found “significant errors” in official procedures related to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Rosenstein noted that internal investigations had revealed that the FBI “was not following the written protocols” in its execution of Crossfire Hurricane.

The way I evaluate this is to look back at my husband’s days in the U.S. Navy. His squadron was being put aboard a different aircraft carrier. The carrier was being brought into its new port with great celebration. The Marine band was there, the governor was there, many important people were there. The ship ran aground on the way in and couldn’t get to the actual port. Eventually all the dignitaries simply went home. The next day, tug boats waited for high tide and brought the ship in. Keep in mind that the harbor pilot was steering the ship at the moment it ran aground. However, the captain of the ship was soon relieved of his duties. He was considered responsible. I believe Rod Rosenstein needs to be held responsible for the miscarriage of justice that occurred on his watch.