Roberts Joins Liberals To Strike Down Louisiana Abortion Law. I told you that this man is being blackmailed. The Skeletons in his Closet are his Achilles Heel. Search my Blog for details!
As long as John Roberts is on the Bench, the Supreme court is compromised. Don't you see he will always side with what the People behind the curtain tell him to do on major cases. He will side with his leftist cohorts on the Bench in all things pro abortion! Follow his rulings!
The Supreme Court barred enforcement of a Louisiana law called Act
620 or the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act on a five to four vote
Thursday night.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the high court’s liberal bloc to prohibit the law’s implementation over the dissent of
Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and
Neil Gorsuch noted their dissent but did not join the Kavanaugh opinion.
The act was scheduled to take effect on Friday.
The Louisiana measure provides that physicians who perform abortions
must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Abortion advocates
say the law is identical to a Texas regulation which the Supreme Court struck down in 2016 in a case called Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
Justice Samuel Alito delayed implementation of the Louisiana law by
one week on Feb. 1. That order, called an administrative stay, was
necessary so that the justices could review court filings from each
party. Alito hears emergency petitions which arise out of the 5th
Circuit.
A federal trial judge found the law unconstitutional in view of the
Supreme Court’s ruling in the Texas case. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed, finding that Act 620 created a tangible (but
limited) benefit without seriously inhibiting abortion access. Pro-choice groups counter that the law will leave just one abortion
provider in the state. As such, they warn that Act 620 is effectively a
stealth measure to eliminate abortion in Louisiana.
Louisiana’s abortion providers filed an emergency application at the
high court asking the justices to temporarily lift the 5th Circuit’s
decision in January. The Court granted that request Thursday night. The
order, called a stay, will remain in effect until the Court processes a
formal request from the abortion providers to review the 5th Circuit’s
ruling. That process generally takes several months. As is typical of orders of this nature, the majority did not give reasons for granting the request.
Speaking after Thursday’s decision, Nancy Northup of the Center for
Reproductive Rights predicted the abortion providers would ultimately
prevail.
“The Supreme Court has stepped in under the wire to protect the
rights of Louisiana women,” Northup said in. “The three clinics left in
Louisiana can stay open while we ask the Supreme Court to hear our case.
This should be an easy case — all that’s needed is a straightforward
application of the Court’s own precedent.” In dissent, Kavanaugh said that the Court should have allowed
implementation of the law to resolve the dispute over its effects on
access. If physicians in the state’s three abortion clinics were still
unable to attain admission privileges after a 45-day transition period,
Kavanaugh said they could bring new claims against the state. On the
other hand, if they successfully obtained admission privileges, then
abortion access would not be burdened and the dispute would terminate.
The case was seen as an important test for the Court’s newly
constituted conservative majority. That Roberts voted with the Court’s
liberals suggests he could take a measured, cautious approach to
abortion cases in the near term. A decision permitting implementation of
the law would have indicated a decisive break with recent pro-choice
precedents.
Thursday’s decision marks the second time that Roberts has sided with
the liberal justices on an abortion issue in the current term. The high
court, with Roberts and Kavanaugh in the majority, denied review of three cases relating to Republican efforts to disqualify Planned Parenthood from Medicaid eligibility in December 2018.
Donald Trump has the Authority as Commander in Chief... to Build the wall.. Here's why.. President Donald Trump does not have to declare a State of Emergency in
order to direct the Defense Department to erect barriers at the U.S.
border with Mexico. President Trump can direct the Pentagon, the United States military,
pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284 to build such barriers as are necessary to
secure our Southern border from drug trafficking and international crime
cartels, would the United States military will have to obey that order !!
Among other provisions, the law allows for the “construction of roads
and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling
corridors across international boundaries of the United States.”
Title 10, Section 284 of the U.S. Code,
which authorizes the DoD to provide support for counter-drug
operations, if requested by the appropriate federal and state
authorities
ANY ARGUMENT ? Any Federal Judge that tries to block this wall should be arrested for SEDITION!
10 U.S. Code § 284 - Support for counter drug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime
(a)Support to Other Agencies.—The Secretary of Defense may provide support for the counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of any other department or agency of the Federal Government or of any State, local, tribal, or foreign law enforcement agency for any of the purposes set forth in subsection (b) or (c), as applicable, if—
(1) in the case of support described in subsection (b), such support is requested—
by the appropriate official of a State, local, or tribal government, in the case of support for State, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies; or
(2)
in the case of support described in subsection (c), such support is requested by an appropriate official of a department or agency of the Federal Government, in coordination with the Secretary of State, that has counterdrug responsibilities or responsibilities for countering transnational organized crime.
(b)Types of Support for Agencies of United States.—The purposes for which the Secretary may provide support under subsection (a) for other departments or agencies of the Federal Government or a State, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies, are the following:
(1) The maintenance and repair of equipment that has been made available to any department or agency of the Federal Government or to any State, local, or tribal government by the Department of Defense for the purposes of—
(A)
preserving the potential future utility of such equipment for the Department of Defense; and
(B)
upgrading such equipment to ensure compatibility of that equipment with other equipment used by the Department.
(2)
The maintenance, repair, or upgrading of equipment (including computer
software), other than equipment referred to in paragraph (1) for the
purpose of—
(A)
ensuring that the equipment being maintained or repaired is compatible with equipment used by the Department of Defense; and
(B)
upgrading such equipment to ensure the compatibility of that equipment with equipment used by the Department.
(3)
The transportation of personnel of the United States and foreign countries (including per diem expenses associated with such transportation), and the transportation of supplies and equipment, for the purpose of facilitating counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime within or outside the United States.
Counterdrug or counter-transnational organized crime related training of law enforcement personnel of the Federal Government, of State,
local, and tribal governments, including associated support expenses
for trainees and the provision of materials necessary to carry out such
training.
(6) The detection, monitoring, and communication of the movement of—
(A)
air and sea traffic within 25 miles of and outside the geographic boundaries of the United States; and
(B)
surface traffic outside the geographic boundary of the United States and within the United States not to exceed 25 miles of the boundary if the initial detection occurred outside of the boundary.
(7)
Construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.
(8)
Establishment of command, control, communications,
and computer networks for improved integration of law enforcement,
active military, and National Guard activities.
(9)
The provision of linguist and intelligence analysis services.
(10)
Aerial and ground reconnaissance.
(c) Types of Support for Foreign Law Enforcement Agencies.—
(1)Purposes.—The
purposes for which the Secretary may provide support under subsection
(a) for foreign law enforcement agencies are the following:
(A)
The transportation of personnel of the United States and foreign countries (including per diem expenses associated with such transportation), and the transportation of supplies and equipment, for the purpose of facilitating counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime within or outside the United States.
(B)
The establishment (including small scale construction)
and operation of bases of operations or training facilities for the
purpose of facilitating counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime of a foreign law enforcement agency outside the United States.
(C) The detection, monitoring, and communication of the movement of—
(i)
air and sea traffic within 25 miles of and outside the geographic boundaries of the United States; and
(ii)
surface traffic outside the geographic boundaries of the United States.
(D)
Establishment of command, control, communications, and computer networks for improved integration of United States Federal and foreign law enforcement entities and United States Armed Forces.
(E)
The provision of linguist and intelligence analysis services.
(F)
Aerial and ground reconnaissance.
(2)Coordination with secretary of state.—
In providing support for a purpose described in this subsection, the Secretary shall coordinate with the Secretary of State.
(d)Contract Authority.—
In carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary may
acquire services or equipment by contract for support provided under
that subsection if the Department
of Defense would normally acquire such services or equipment by
contract for the purpose of conducting a similar activity for the Department.
(e)Limited Waiver of Prohibition.—
Notwithstanding section 376 [1]
of this title, the Secretary may provide support pursuant to subsection
(a) in any case in which the Secretary determines that the provision of
such support would adversely affect the military preparedness of the United States in
the short term if the Secretary determines that the importance of
providing such support outweighs such short-term adverse effect.
(f)Conduct of Training or Operation To Aid Civilian Agencies.—
In providing support pursuant to subsection (a),
the Secretary may plan and execute otherwise valid military training or
operations (including training exercises undertaken pursuant to section
1206(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990
and 1991 (Public Law 101–189; 103 Stat. 1564) [2] for the purpose of aiding civilian law enforcement agencies.
(g) Relationship to Other Support Authorities.—
(1)Additional authority.—
The authority provided in this section for the support of counterdrug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime by the Department of Defense is in addition to, and except as provided in paragraph (2), not subject to the other requirements of this chapter.
(2)Exception.—
Support under this section shall be subject to the provisions of section 375 1 and, except as provided in subsection (e), section 376 1 of this title.
(h) Congressional Notification.—
(1)In general.—Not
less than 15 days before providing support for an activity under
subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a written and electronic notice of the following:
(A) In the case of support for a purpose described in subsection (c)—
(i)
the country the capacity of which will be built or enabled through the provision of such support;
(ii)
the budget,
implementation timeline with milestones, anticipated delivery schedule
for support, and completion date for the purpose or project for which
support is provided;
(iii)
the source and planned expenditure of funds provided for the project or purpose;
(iv)
a description of the arrangements, if any, for the
sustainment of the project or purpose and the source of funds to
support sustainment of the capabilities and performance outcomes
achieved using such support, if applicable;
(v)
a description of the objectives for the project or
purpose and evaluation framework to be used to develop capability and
performance metrics associated with operational outcomes for the
recipient;
(vi)
information, including the amount, type, and purpose, about the support
provided the country during the three fiscal years preceding the fiscal
year for which the support covered by the notice is provided under this
section under—
(I)
this section;
(II)
section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2763);
(III)
peacekeeping operations;
(IV)
the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement program under section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291);
(V)
Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining, and Related Programs;
(VI)
counterdrug activities authorized by section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (10 U.S.C. 374 note) 1 and section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85); or
(VII)
any other significant program, account, or
activity for the provision of security assistance that the Secretary of
Defense and the Secretary of State consider appropriate;
(vii)
an evaluation of the capacity of the recipient country to absorb the support provided; and
(viii)
an evaluation of the manner in which the project
or purpose for which the support is provided fits into the theater
security cooperation strategy of the applicable geographic combatant
command.
(B)
In the case of support for a purpose described in subsection (b) or (c), a description of any small scale construction project for which support is provided.
(2)Coordination with secretary of state.—
In providing notice under this subsection for a
purpose described in subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense shall
coordinate with the Secretary of State.
The term “transnational organized crime”
means self-perpetuating associations of individuals who operate
transnationally for the purpose of obtaining power, influence, monetary,
or commercial gains, wholly or in part by illegal means, while
protecting their activities through a pattern of corruption or violence
or through a transnational organization structure and the exploitation
of transnational commerce or communication mechanisms.
STOLEN VALOR... THE LEFTIST LIES ABOUT THE ENCOUNTER BETWEEN TEENAGERS AND THE BLACK RACISTS AND AGING INJUN ACTIVIST!
Let me start by telling you .. anyone ... I mean ANYONE who dares to bang a Gong/Drum or what ever, 2 inches from my face will get their FUCKIN face punched in! PERIOD!
Now watch the full Video and tell me who was taunting who!
While many mainstream news outlets have been pathologically fixed
on researching everything having to do with Covington Catholic High
School and The Covington Kids, precious few (I’d wager none) have
devoted any resources to researching anything regarding Nathan Phillips’
military service or anything else about him. On Monday Streiff reported that it was mathematically impossible that Phillips served in the Vietnam war, but Phillips’ DD-214 wasn’t publicly available.
Late Tuesday, that changed. Retired Navy SEAL Don Shipley shared Nathan Phillips’ (a/k/a Nathan Stanard) DD-214, which he’d acquired
through a FOIA request.
He enlisted under Nathaniel Richard Stanard, an “adopted” name,
according to the DD-214, but his birth name was Nathaniel Phillips. He
enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserves, serving from 1972 to 1976. He
never left the United States during his service in Lincoln, NE, and El
Toro, CA, and was discharged as a private.
Check out his duty status lists “discharged,” not “honorably discharged.”
That could have to do with his multiple stints in confinement after
being AWOL. When he wasn’t AWOL, what did he do? According to Phillips:
“I’m what they call a ‘recon ranger.’ That was my role.”
Wrong. His role was as a refrigerator mechanic, or ReferMech. Shipley notes that Phillips usually says he is a veteran of the
“Vietnam times” or “Vietnam days” and hasn’t himself claimed that he
served in Vietnam. According to this 2008 “Indian Country Today” article
covering a sacred pipe ceremony Phillips held annually at Arlington
National Ceremony, Phillips made a more direct claim about serving in
Vietnam:
“Phillips also described coming back to the U.S. as a
veteran of the Vietnam era. ‘People called me a baby killer and a hippie
girl spit on me.'”
Returning to the United States from where? Was he overseas before
enlisting? Or is he talking about coming back to El Toro from a trip to
Baja California and using vague language to insinuate, but not blatantly
claim, that he served in Vietnam?
It’s not often that I’m left speechless. I don’t know whether to
laugh at the revelation that Mr. Recon Ranger is actually Mr. Freon
Ranger or be extremely pissed that this man is
stealing the valor of men who actually were recon rangers or served in
Vietnam and who have lived with the nightmares and anguish their service
left them with for decades.
Its time to take all these Left Deified assholes to task and Take them down!
They are empowered because we on the right do not attack back.
Lets kick some ass. We go Antifa to back off a lot with our MUG A THUG alliance ! Lets mug these assholes too!
The Democrat ( Leftists) have colluded with Soviets/Russians for years. the Leftist Media does not Report this because it dos not support their agenda. The Elimination of a Constitutional Republic called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
Here is evidence!
1) KGB Memo – Senator Ted Kennedy – Democrats
All the prior shenanigans of the 2016 Presidential election beg a
look back. As to how far the Democrats are willing to go to foil and
disrupt an election, an election as important as the ultimate prize,
President of the United States. Senator Ted Kennedy wanted to diffuse the arms race and run for
President in 1984 against Ronald Reagan. Is this real collusion or not?
There is no doubt in my mind at least that if Kennedy had been the
Democratic nominee and beat out Reagan in 1984, there would still be a
Soviet Union today along with the Warsaw Pact; Warsaw Pact countries
that are free today as independent nations. The Berlin Wall would have
never come down for East Berliners and the old Warsaw Pact countries
would still be living under Communist tyranny today.
State Emblem of the Soviet Union
KGB Symbol
Before getting to the text about Kennedy contacting the Russians, what or better yet, who is the KGB (1954-1991)? A short description may help us understand who they are – “Its
main functions were foreign intelligence, counterintelligence,
operative-investigatory activities, guarding the State Border of the
USSR, guarding the leadership of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
and the Soviet Government, organization and ensuring of government
communications as well as combating nationalism, dissent, and
anti-Soviet activities.”
FSB
Today the KGB was replaced with the FSB— Its main responsibilities are within the country. It does counter-intelligence, internal and border security, counter-terrorism, and surveillance.[2] It also investigates some other types of serious crimes. Its headquarter is in Lubyanka
Square, Moscow’s centre, in the main building of the former KGB. The
Director of the FSB since 2008 is army general Aleksandr Bortnikov. Not much difference except the name has changed. Now, what was Senator Ted Kennedy a Democrat doing, one who many
considered ‘The Lion of The Senate”, up to as this KGB information
indicates, if it is in fact true and I’ll bet the CIA knows one way or
the other— KGB MEMO ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY _________________________________________ Special Importance
Committee on State Security of the USSR
14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV
Moscow Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov Comrade Y.V. Andropov On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend
and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged
Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts,
to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov. Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by
the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing
such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global
affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for
this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new
American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe. According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s
refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his
domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized
improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced,
production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For
these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House
has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.” Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone
according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of
financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee
certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in
the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign
of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there
are no secure assurances this will indeed develop. The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and
Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will
without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The
movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries
continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also
willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its
continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country,
including within Congress, the resistence to growing military
expenditures is gaining strength. However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still
very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they
make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to
effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism
that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan
will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time,
Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of
context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although
arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the
press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read
serious newspapers or periodicals. Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in
the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the
following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his
campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard,
he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V.
Andropov: 1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator
to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose
of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet
officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so
they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in
the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip
through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he
will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would
send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding
organizing such a visit. Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will
be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican
senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong
impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982,
Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals
of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.) 2. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it
would be important to organize in August-September of this year,
televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by
the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt,
attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The
senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far
as television is the most effective method of mass media and
information. If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his
friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the
largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an
invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of
the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists
Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator
underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming
from the American side. Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised
interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly
from the military would be organized. They would also have an
opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful
intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a
true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term.
This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration. Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary
of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is
his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the
threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that
they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the
activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed
their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal
understandings between peoples. The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney. Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney
also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively
made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally
refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would
be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign
promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in
1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which
could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a
divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together,
Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic
Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the
Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why
he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at
defeating Reagan. We await instructions. President of the committee V. Chebrikov
_________________________________________
Now that we know that Fusion GPS was a go-between for the DNC to do
what they call operation research, you know, the kind that included a
false Dossier on Donald Trump’s campaign and the set-up with Trump Jr.
luring him to sit down with the Russians over some Clinton information,
which there was none, it was all just a set-up. A set-up to make it look
more like what the Democrats were saying openly had to be true in order
to ensure Clinton won the 2016 election. It appears now all this fake collusion business was to stop President
Trump’s agenda if he just happens to win, which of course he did. The
American people have caught on and in particular many are upset with the
Republicans’ in Congress for sitting on their hands about the fake
“collusion business”. Besides Trump is an outsider anyway, not part of
the “good ole boys club” and they would rather see the American people
suffer than to do the right thing thus blaming Trump for it.
2) MANY OF YOU MAY NOT CONNECT THE DOTS FROM THIS HOT MIKE EXCHANGE.. WHEN OBAMA WAS CAUGHT TELLING MEDVEDEV THAT HE WOULD HAVE MORE "FLEXIBILITY" AFTER HIS 2012 ELECTION!
Ever ask yourself what Obama was being Flexible about ?? What did he do to appease the Russians?
Obama Offered Deal to Russia in Secret Letter sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.
The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States
would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been
vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush
administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and
ballistic missiles.
The
officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity
because it has not been made public. While they said it did not offer a
direct quid pro quo, the letter was intended to give Moscow an
incentive to join the United States in a common front against Iran.
Russia’s military, diplomatic and commercial ties to Tehran give it some
influence there, but it has often resisted Washington’s hard line
against Iran.
“It’s
almost saying to them, put up or shut up,” said a senior administration
official. “It’s not that the Russians get to say, ‘We’ll try and
therefore you have to suspend.’ It says the threat has to go away.”
On
Tuesday, a press secretary for Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Interfax
news agency that the letter did not contain any “specific proposals or
mutually binding initiatives.”
Natalya Timakova said the letter was a reply to one sent by Mr. Medvedev shortly after Mr. Obama was elected.
“Medvedev
appreciated the promptness of the reply and the positive spirit of the
message,” Ms. Timakova said. “Obama’s letter contains various proposals
and assessments of the current situation. But the message did not
contain any specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”
She
said Mr. Medvedev perceives the development of Russian-American
relations as “exceptionally positive,” and hopes details can be fleshed
out at a meeting on Friday in Geneva between Foreign Minister Sergei V. Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
DID HE ? YES HE DID
Obama abandons missile defence shield in Europe
Obama has abandoned the controversial Pentagon plan to build a missile defence system in Europe that had long soured relations with Russia.
In one of the sharpest breaks yet with the policies of the Bush
administration, Obama said the new approach would offer "stronger,
swifter and smarter" defence for the US and its allies. He said it would
focus on the threat posed by Iran's short- and medium-range missiles,
rather than its intercontinental nuclear capabilities. Obama announced the reversal officially at a news conference today.
"This new approach will provide capabilities sooner, build on proven
systems to offer greater defences to the threat of attack than the 2007
European missile defence programme," he said. He phoned the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic
last night to tell them he had dropped plans to site missile
interceptors and a radar station in their respective countries. Russia
had furiously opposed the project, claiming it targeted Moscow's nuclear
arsenal. The change of tack had been prompted by advances in missile
technology and new intelligence about Iran's existing missile
capabilities, Obama said. The US president said "updated intelligence" on Iran's existing
short- and medium-range missiles showed they were "capable of reaching
Europe". He added that the US would continue its efforts to end Iranian
attempts to develop an "illicit nuclear programme". He said: "To put it simply our new missile defence architecture in
Europe will provide stronger, smarter, swifter defences of American
forces and America's allies." During a visit to Moscow in July Obama indicated he was ordering a
60-day review of the scheme. According to today's Wall Street Journal,
the findings, to be released next week, conclude that Iran's long-range
missile programme is progressing more slowly than previously thought.
Citing US officials, the paper said the White House believes Iran's
short to medium-range programme poses a more potent and immediate
danger. In his press conference today, Obama made a point of rejecting
Russia's objections to the missile defence shield. "Its concerns about
our previous missile defence programmes were entirely unfounded," he
said. The Russian response suggested Obama's decision would not be met by
any swift or generous concessions. A foreign ministry spokesman, Andrei
Nesterenko, described the move as "obviously a positive sign for us" but
made clear the decision had been a unilateral one taken by Washington
alone. He suggested there had been no deals with Moscow on Iran
or other issues. "That would disagree with our policy of resolution of
any problems in relations with any countries, no matter how difficult or
sensitive they may be." The US decision will cheer many in government in western Europe who
believed the scheme was an unnecessary provocation to the Russians. But
today the Czech Republic and Poland
expressed disappointment at the White House's decision to reverse track
after six years of difficult negotiations. Senior sources in Warsaw and
Prague said they would insist on the Americans honouring pledges they
made to the Nato allies in return for agreeing last year to the plan for
missile defence deployments. Alexandr Vondra, a former Czech deputy prime minister and ambassador
to Washington intimately involved in the negotiations with the
Americans, said he was surprised. "This is a U-turn in US policy," he
said. "But first we expect the US to honour its commitments. If they
don't they may have problems generating support for Afghanistan and on
other things." Under the Bush administration the Pentagon spent years planning and
negotiating to place 10 silos with interceptor rockets in northern
Poland and to build a large radar station south of Prague to defend
against a perceived ballistic missile threat from Iran. The central European countries were keen to acquire the US
installations and other military hardware as partial security guarantees
against a resurgent Russia. Moscow claimed the project was aimed
against Russia
and threatened to deploy short-range nuclear weapons in the Russian
exclave of Kaliningrad, which sits inside the European Union. Obama's climbdown is likely to be seen by Russia as a victory for its uncompromising stance. Today, however, analysts pointed out the decision would help Obama
secure Moscow's co-operation on a possible new sanctions package against
Iran and would further his desire to "reset" relations with Moscow
following a dismal period under the Bush administration. It would significantly boost the chances of a new treaty on strategic
nuclear arms reduction between Washington and Moscow, they said. Both
the US and Russia have agreed to come up with a successor treaty to
Start 1 by December, when the current agreement expires. "Hardliners in Russia don't want an agreement on Start. It will be
very difficult now for Russia to avoid an agreement," said Ruben
Sergeyev, a defence analyst in Moscow. "It [the decision to drop the US
shield] creates a very positive ambience, despite the fact it was really
an artificial thing." The decision strengthens Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, who
is due to make his first presidential trip to the US next week for the
G20 meeting in Pittsburgh. The Obama administration
has been keen to boost Medvedev's standing and authority at home,
seeing him as a more moderate and less hostile interlocutor than Putin. Today the Nato secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said Obama's
decision was "a positive step". Rasmussen said he had been briefed by
the US envoy to Nato about it. But the timing of the announcement is regarded as disastrous by the
Poles. Eugeniusz Smolar, a former chief of Warsaw's Centre for
International Relations, said: "We are disappointed." But he added that
the Polish government had been assured by the Americans that promises of
training with Patriot missile batteries and help in modernising the
Polish military remained valid. A few weeks ago, in a cri de coeur to Washington, several
senior eastern European officials and public figures wrote a public
letter to Obama complaining that their security interests were being
ignored by the west to improve relations with Moscow. Rasmussen, in his first big speech, is to call tomorrow for a new
relationship between the western military alliance and Russia, taking
more account of Moscow's security and strategic interests. Russian experts said Obama's decision could only be seen as an
unambiguous concession to Moscow, adding that it would severely
disappoint the new Nato countries of eastern Europe. Yevgeny Miasnikov, a
senior research scientist at Moscow's Centre for Arms Control, said the
US administration would now consider ways of assuaging the Poles and
Czechs, which might include providing Poland with Patriot interceptors
capable of shooting down short- and medium-range missiles. "Obama has taken a step in the direction of improving US-Russian
relations. This will definitely help build a partnership," Miasnikov
said. "Russia will also now make some concessions, maybe on strategic
talks over nuclear arms reduction or maybe over Iran. "Moscow will try to catalyse the process of improving US-Iranian
relations and will facilitate dialogue between the two sides. I don't
think threatening Iran is the way to solve this problem."
COLLUSION WITH RUSSIA? Then he worked with Hillary Clinton to give Russia 20% of US Uranium. Why ? How Naive can you be ? If US Uranium shows up in a Suitcase bomb.. that Russia give to a 3rd party Rouge regime or Actor... the bomb signature will show US Uranium and so we will not be able to blame other countries!
Remember this..
What were they resetting? They were setting up the sale of Uranium to The Russians...
Robert Mueller Conspired with Hillary Obama Gang. Was a Secret Paid Uranium Mule.. Julian Assange at WikiLeaks has exposed a
2009 State Department cable to the Russians raises fresh questions
about the objectivity of Special Counsel Robert Mueller (shown), the man
named to investigate any possible “collusions” between the presidential
campaign of Donald Trump and the Russians. In 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directed FBI
Director Mueller to deliver a sample of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) to
Russia. The uranium had reportedly been stolen. It seems particularly
odd, considering that the FBI is not under the supervision of the State
Department, and that the FBI director would personally make the transfer.
Assange released the controversial cable on May 17, the same day that
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein tapped Mueller as an
“independent” counsel to investigate any supposed Trump-Russian ties. Obama and Hillary conspired on their secret email server to sell 20% of US URANIUM to the Russians.. Click below for details
HERE is STATE DEPT (under HRC) cable documenting MUELLER secret
squirrel TRAITOR mission to MOSCOW on Sept 21 2009 to DELIVER URANIUM to
Russia
Mueller’s Role in Delivering Uranium to Russians Raises Questions. HE WAS THE CLINTON OBAMA URANIUM MULE
5 Times The Obama Administration Helped Russia At The United States’ Expense
If Russian President Vladimir Putin really did think a Donald Trump
presidency would be good for Russia, the first year of that presidency
must be quite the disappointment. There has been no indication that the
Trump administration’s policies are influenced by Russian preferences. Perhaps that’s why some found interesting a recent Daily Beast
article claiming Trump National Security Council senior staffer Kevin
Harrington recommended withdrawing U.S. troops from Eastern Europe to
curry favor with Russia. This, the article states, was “something that
smelled, to a colleague, like a return on Russia’s election-time
investment in President Trump.” Sure, it’s the speculation of an anonymous source, but it would be
bad, if true. Then the article goes on to say a second anonymous former
colleague “noted that Harrington’s proposal was largely politely brushed
aside, even at the uniquely chaotic early days of the Trump era.” Oh. Yes, that was a horrible, dangerous, unbelievably stupid idea. It
was also rejected. It never approached the possibility that it could
become a reality—unlike all the times people in the Obama administration
had ideas about capitulating to the Russians and then those ideas
becoming reality. Here are just five times the Obama administration considered then
carried out bad policies that helped Russia and hurt the United States. 1. Choked at Russia’s Cyberattacks and Election Meddling While there is no evidence that anything Russian efforts did
affected the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, the intelligence
community assesses Russia
interfered in the months leading up to it to sow public discord and
undermine confidence in the democratic process. The Obama administration
knew about this for months. But President Obama opted to not call
Russia out on it publicly or inform the American people. In fact, his administration didn’t even draw public attention to
this until October, just weeks before the election. In a hearing on the
subject, Democrat Rep. Adam Schiff asked Obama
Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, “Why wasn’t it more important
to tell the American people the length and breadth of what the Russians
were doing to interfere in an election than any risk that it might be
seen as putting your hand on the scale? Didn’t the public have a
compelling need to know?” Indeed. Even Tom Donilon, a former Obama national security advisor, argues Obama should have made “aggressive public attribution” that Russia was responsible, long before the administration did. Then there was all that Russian hacking that went on throughout
the Obama presidency. The Russians pilfered American intellectual
property and attacked private companies, Nasdaq, and banks, as well as government agencies, including the Pentagon. 2. Abdicated Leadership on Syria to Russia The Islamic Republic of Iran funds and exports terrorism that has directly led to the deaths of
American soldiers. Syria is a proxy state of Iran, and in 2011 an
uprising challenged its brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad. In 2015
President Obama drew his infamous red line, threatening a U.S. military
response if Assad used chemical weapons against the Syrian people. Later that year, Assad used chemical weapons, killing more than
1,500 people. President Obama failed to enforce the red line, instead
choosing to accept a deal with Russia to “remove” all of Syria’s
chemical weapons. After some of the chemical weapons were
removed, President Obama declared victory, saying, “American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated.” Months later, Secretary of State John Kerry boasted, “We struck a
deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.” That was
false. Assad continued to use chemical weapons against his own people.
According to former Obama administration officials, Obama’s failure to
punish Assad and enforce prohibitions on chemical weapons was directly
due to his administration’s desire to assuage Russia, Syria’s—and Iran’s—ally. 3. Cancelled U.S. Missile Defenses In Eastern Europe Russia’s government strongly opposed Bush administration
plans to deploy ballistic missile defenses in Poland and the Czech
Republic. The pretext for their disapproval was that the system would
weaken the effect of the Russian offensive force. This was always nonsense. The defenses’ 10 interceptors and
associated radar could not handle the massive offensive Russian force.
The plan was to deploy the system to provide additional coverage of the
U.S. homeland and European allies from Iranian long-range ballistic
missiles. The placement in Poland provided an optimal angle from which
to shoot at any incoming missiles. Russians actually opposed this
because it would entail placing U.S. forces in Poland. It took courage from the Polish and Czech governments to stick
their necks out and push for these deployments, knowing it would anger
the Russian government. This is why the missile defense initiative took
on a greater political significance beyond the mere technical protection
it would offer. Then in 2009, just as President Obama was kicking off
his “Russia reset,” he pulled the rug out from under the Poles and
Czechs and cancelled the missile defense plan. Polish newspapers called the decision a betrayal and some Polish
politicians wondered publicly if the United States under President
Obama’s leadership was demoting Poland’s allied status. In 2012, still smarting over the cancellation, Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski said,
“Our mistake was that by accepting the American offer of a shield we
failed to take into account the political risk associated with a change
of president… We paid a high political price.” Jan Vidim, a Czech
lawmaker, told the Associated Press, “If the Administration approaches
us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it.” Obama defenders will dispute this and argue the cancelation was
due to the missile defense system’s ineffectiveness or that the
administration merely wanted a different kind of missile defense
architecture. WikiLeaks released the State Department cables in 2010, revealing that appeasing Russia was a motivator for canceling the plan with Poland. But President Obama wasn’t done using missile defense as a
negotiating chip with the Russians. Three years later the infamous “hot
mic” incident occurred when President Obama met then Russian President
Medvedev and was caught asking Medvedev to communicate to Putin, then
prime minister, that he should give Obama “space” on “all these issues,
but particularly missile defense” until after the U.S. presidential
election, because once he had the headache of the American peoples’
wishes behind him, he’d have “more flexibility.” You can watch and
listen to the exchange here. 4. Allowed Russia to Sell S-300 Air Defenses to Iran Should the United States or Israel decide it is in their
interest to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, the Iranians wouldn’t have a
robust air defense system to shoot down the attacking aircraft. Unless,
of course, the Russians sold the powerful S-300 air defense system to
the Iranians, which they did. The United States firmly opposed and prevented the Russians from
doing this for years, threatening sanctions if they so dared. But in
pursuit of the Iran deal, in 2010 the Obama administration opted not to prohibit the
Russian sale of the S-300s to Iran. The Russians delivered the systems
to Iran and Iran promptly deployed them around its nuclear facility at
Fordow. The Obama administration declined to impose sanctions on Russia despite its clear violation of laws that opposed the move. 5. Ignored Russia’s Treaty Violations U.S. congressmen from both parties grew increasingly frustrated when
repeatedly seeking answers from the Obama administration over reports
that Russia was violating the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty, negotiated by President Reagan and General Secretary
Gorbachev, that abolished an entire class of missiles. In 2014 the Obama
administration finally publicly admitted that Russia had been violating the treaty as early as 2008. What made this episode especially maddening was that the Obama
administration negotiated yet another arms-control treaty with the
Russians, the New START Treaty, and rushed it through the Senate, all
while Russia was cheating on INF and appearing to keep this violation from Congress. (By the way, Russia is still cheating.) So far, the Trump administration has been moving forward with a
variety of initiatives that would strengthen U.S. security despite
Russian objections. This includes its energy policy, arming Ukraine, rolling back Iran’s influence, investing in U.S. military preparedness, and significantly improving the U.S. nuclear deterrent and missile defense system. The Trump administration should keep this up, and if it starts to
do otherwise, it deserves every bit of criticism and condemnation from
both ends of the political spectrum that is likely to follow.
Thankfully, it certainly seems as though the policy of Russian
appeasement ended with Trump’s predecessor’s second term.
SO YOU TELL ME WHO HAS COLLUDED WITH THE RUSSIANS AND THE SOVIETS?
They are trying t bring down The CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND THEY ARE HIDING THE TRUTH !!
Democratic ties to Russia are ample, and often ethically Crooked!
Here are just a few examples: The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner (D-Va.), had extensive contact
with a lobbyist for a Russian oligarch to help connect with the author
of the anti-Trump “dossier.” Warner reportedly texted at the time that
he didn’t wish to “leave a paper trail.” Warner allegedly waited six
months before disclosing the contacts to the committee, which is
investigating Russia matters. The anti-Trump “dossier” that the
FBI secretly used to justify wiretaps on a Trump adviser was compiled by
a man at a political opposition research firm, Fusion GPS, who relied
on and quoted Russian sources who are close to President Putin. According to anonymous intel officials quoted in the New York Times, U.S. intelligence officials made a deal with Russians who offered unverified, compromising material on Trump. A Washington lobbying/consulting firm, the Podesta Group, founded by Obama adviser and Hillary Clinton
campaign chairman John Podesta and his brother, lobbied for Russia’s
largest bank, owned by the government (or, as you like, President
Putin). John’s brother, Tony, also lobbied for Ukrainian interests
(reportedly in partnership with Trump associates Manafort and Gates).
John Podesta left the firm years ago; Tony stepped down last November
amid controversy over the lobbying. He has not been charged with any crimes. The
Podesta Group also represented Russia-owned Uranium One, which received
approval from a federal oversight board that included the State
Department under Hillary Clinton to buy about one-fifth of the U.S.
production capacity of uranium, a key material for making nuclear
weapons. Uranium One interests reportedly contributed $145 million to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable foundation. Former
Sens. John Breaux (D-La.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) lobbied for Russia’s
banking giant, Gazprombank, owned by Putin’s government. The lead Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff
(D-Calif.), engaged with a Russian caller posing as a Ukrainian contact
offering Russian blackmail material against President Trump. Afterward,
Schiff made arrangements
for his staff to try to collect the material. It turns out the caller
was a Russian radio-host spoofer. Schiff has said he was not really
fooled by the call. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also reportedly engaged in conversations with Russian comedians who posed as Ukrainian officials. McCain secretlydelivered to the FBI a copy of the anti-Trump “dossier” opposition research, which quoted Russian sources. The
Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign
funded the anti-Trump “dossier” that relied on Russian sources, who were
close to Kremlin officials.
