Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Did Hillary Clinton damage 2016 presidential run with Benghazi attack cover up

Will Hillary Clinton damage 2016 presidential run with Benghazi attack cover up Congressional committee testimony

 

Typically, when most liberal political kingmakers pontificate about the next Clinton to grasp the presidential mantle, it is done with an air of obvious entitlement.  Hillary Clinton has positioned herself for this office ever since her days as a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee, which was investigating Watergate.

It was in the congressional backrooms that Hillary, began a pattern of alleged deceitful behavior that would serve her through many a state and federal prosecutorial investigation.  These investigations followed her and her husband, Bill Clinton from Arkansas to the White House, and now beyond.

Yet, the most onerous of Hillary claims has been linked to a web of mangled White House storylines concerning Benghazi Consulate security, attack, murders and what the president knew and when did he know it.

Fabrication of events is not new for Hillary Clinton, and according to her former boss Jerry Zeifman, who was “counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee,”  Hillary Clinton was fired from her position on the committee as a staff attorney for lying.

The mainstream media kept this embarrassing side note out of the public eye when her husband, Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 and in her own run for the U.S. seat from New York in 2000.

Yet, Jerry Zeifman, seemed compelled to alert the nation about Hillary Clinton, who in 2006 was making coordinated moves to run for President in 2008.  In his book, “Hillary Pursuit of Power,” he stressed, while working on the Judiciary Committee, Clinton, … engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”

Therefore it should be of surprise to no one that she was caught up in purported lies while First Lady of Arkansas as well as First Lady of the United States.  These scandals included in Whitewater illegal activities, the Travelgate cover up and her conveniently manufactured lie about coming under attack while visiting Bosnia.

Even though scandal and cover-ups seem to follow her like a bad penny, it is the string of Watergate style congressional performances which may actually be informative as well as the undoing of her presidential aspirations.

Fast forward to September 12th when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared in the White House Rose Garden with President Barack Obama to spin yet another web of tangled storylines.  This time, Hillary Clinton was joining another president who was involved in denying the truth about the murders of Americans in Benghazi, and not just a break in or a presidential fling.

This time, Hillary Clinton was not manufacturing lies against President Nixon’s ability to obtain legal counsel.  Nor was she trying to think up strategic avenues for covering up her sexual predator husband’s dalliances.  Americans died!  This time, it is congress that is in the driver’s seat, not the mainstream media or liberal pundits trying to cover up the truth.

In December Hillary Clinton will go before congressional committees to investigate what the president knew, when did he know it and what did he do about it.  This third time, it may very well be not only Hillary’s presidential aspirations on the line. Perhaps after nearly forty years since the Watergate hearings, she will learn to tell the truth and say, “No, Mr. President, I will not continue to promote a false narrative, because it is illegal and it is wrong to lie to the American people.”

( Click to let me know what you think )

Ambassador Rice Defends White House Watergate Style Lies on Benghazi Cover Up

How could Ambassador Rice explain an attack that she had no personal knowledge of?
Smells like a Watergate style cover up.

U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice has resurfaced after she told America that the attacks and subsequent murders of four American at the U.S. Benghazi Consulate was due to a spontaneous attack because of a You Tube video on five Sunday network news shows.  The nation now knows, and the White House knew then that the story Ambassador Rice spun for America was totally fabricated by the White House.  White House intelligence officials knew the truth within 24 hours.

Could her reemergence into the public eye be due in part to the increasing opposition in congress to her possible nomination by Obama for the soon to be vacated Secretary of State position?  With Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, early attempt to fall on the sword for the president, Rice’s loyalty may yet be her own undoing.

Secretary Clinton had pushed the You Tube narrative and it fell flat after Matthew Olsen, President’s own Director of National Counterterrorism admitted that the attacks on the Benghazi consulate were terrorist and possibly related to Al Qaeda activities. Most importantly, as it turns out, those White House officials as well as State Department and others were quite possibly watching the terrorist attack live via an overhead unmanned drone.

In December, Secretary Clinton will be appearing before congressional intelligence committees to explain her role as well as her and other State Department or White House Benghazi inconsistencies.

Then there are the president’ comments last week when he admitted in a White House press conference that Ambassador Rice was selected because she knew absolutely nothing about the chain of events.  Why would the president of the United States send someone who he admitted, knew absolutely nothing about the security, the attack, the pleas for help and the murders?  How could she explain an attack that she had no personal knowledge of?  Smells like a Watergate style cover up.

This play has been seen before by Americans who endured Watergate and the “long national nightmare which ensued. The nation saw how an administration could hide the truth, deny the act, and then cover up the illegal actions by stonewalling.   Yet in all of the intrigue, congressional investigations and articles of impeachment voted against President Richard Nixon, not one single American citizen lost his life!

So Ambassador Rice, you may feel that mainstream media networks will continue to provide ground cover for your “yes sir, anything sir,” attitude that is totally incredulous, but Americans want accountability.  Obama jetted away for a campaign fundraiser to Las Vegas the very next day, while the families of four Americans were being lied to by the White House.  The president left his credibility in the wind.

So, now Ambassador Rice surfaces in what seems to be an attempt to regurgitate the exact same inconsistencies and cover up narrative as if, telling a lie often enough will suddenly become the truth.  Not this time Ms. Rice.  Not good enough!.  Your oath of office should have more value than protecting a cover story.  Just ask the White House officials who went to jail because they lied to congress about their own culpability in the Watergate cover up.

Again, what was she thinking?

Did Susan Rice truly believe that after the Presidential election, America, the news networks and the congress would go on as business as usual?  Well, Ambassador Rice, America’s business is to find out what the truth really is and why the administration would allow a series of lies to fester in a climate of White House CYA political theatrics.

Four Americans, who had families and had loved ones, only, asked that their Commander in Chief would act like one and defend their lives. The administration reneged on its solemn duty.  The families that saw their loved ones return in coffins deserve more, far, far more than a circle of lies.

Maybe Ms Rice you need to be reminded that these were real people with real families. Their names were: Ambassador Chris Stevens, diplomat Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. 

These were brave men and not the consequence of “bumps in the road” as President Obama alluded to when discussing the attacks in Benghazi and emerging governments in Arab Spring countries during a Sixty Minutes on September 23rd.  This is not only tragic, it is pitiful.  The families are left this holiday season with more questions, and even more lies about how their decent and honorable family members tragically died.

The truth of Watergate did eventually emerge, a tireless Washington Post and two reporters, relentlessly pursued the truth, when other news organizations did not see a story.  Fox News is that current news organization that is tirelessly pursuing the truth about the White House Benghazi inconsistencies. They are matching up the administration’s changing timelines about what happened, when it happened and why no help arrived on the 11th anniversary of the worse terrorist attack in American history.

History has a way of repeating itself.  Forty years ago, Richard Nixon was reelected president of the United States.  Congress then went to work. Articles of Impeachment were voted on, and well, you know the rest of the story.

Fast forward to 2012, where Obama is doing victory laps and Ambassador Rice is apparently aiming for the Secretary of State seat now being kept warm by Hillary Clinton.  Well if conventional wisdom serves, perhaps, Ambassador Rice should be setting her sights more toward a congressional investigation witness seat.

Congress, the ball is in your court.  Call Ambassador Rice to testify in open hearings to tell the American people what she knew about the talking points, and who gave them to her and what the president knew.

Then after the dust and the lies have settled, The House of Representatives must do its solemn duty and call the president of the United States to testify to congress to tell the truth or face open charges of Impeachment.  

After all, it was Obama who threw down the gauntlet at his November 14th White House press conference and defiantly said, for those, “who has been critical of Rice’s comments, should “go after me.”  Well, Speaker John Boehner, there’s your cue!   America and the families are waiting Speaker John Boehner for the truth!

(  Click – Let me know what you think )

Obama Effort to strip constitutional gun rights may start American Civil War

Obama’s move to sign a United Nations’ Gun Ban Treaty will escalate states’ efforts for seceding from the Union.

Are you ready to wake up in an America where your family is defenseless against enemies foreign or domestic? This reality is right around the corner. A day after his reelection, Barack Obama signaled the United Nations that he is ready to sign an Arms Treaty to strip you of your U.S. Second Amendment Constitutional right to bear arms.

This is not new. The United Nations made earlier attempts during the administration of former President George W. Bush. But, President Bush soundly rejected the measure. Now, President Obama, fresh off of this presidential win, feels emboldened to go forward with his design to unilaterally dismember the guaranteed constitutional protections citizens of this nation are entitled to.

Do you feel comfortable with the idea that the U.S. State Department under the control of either Ambassador Hillary Clinton will truly represent your interest? What about her possible replacement nominee, America’s United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice? This is the same Ambassador Rice’s who went on five television network shows to cover up the truth of what happened to four Americans murdered on 9/11 in Benghazi, Libya.

Where does that leave Americans?

The real question is what are you prepared to do in order to defend your right to defend your family? Will you wait to see what happens? Or will you take the necessary steps to make certain that you will not have to wait and see if United Nations gun control officials knock at your door, demanding, and “Gun license and registration, please!”

The right to control your guns is not open for debate or for negotiation. It is a sovereign right that no foreign organization, including the United Nations has the right or the authority to undertake, because a president gives the go ahead.

When any president decides to destroy the nation’s U.S. Constitutional rights afforded its citizens, which he has sworn to uphold, he no longer has the authority to represent the nation’s citizens. He must be impeached!

The U.S. Constitution says with great clarity in Article II, Section 4:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Your signed petitions should be forwarded to John Boehner, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

The impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives according to Article I, Section 2: “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

You do not need the permission of the White House nor do you need the permission of the mainstream media to determine your course of action to demand the impeachment of  Barack Obama. Develop a list of particulars that petitioners in all fifty states will sign. The secessionist movement has already gotten the ball rolling.

Several hundred thousand petitioners representing all fifty states, including battleground state Ohio have signed to secede from the union. This is far more serious than a group of Hollywood actors and entertainers who threatened to vacate and move to Canada after President Bush was reelected in 2004.

This is a significant and determined first step in the process to take back this nation from a president who has made numerous attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

Impeachment for the purposes of clarification comes from English law and was used in 1640 case against Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. He had, “traiterously endeavored to subvert the Fundamental Laws and Government of the Realms . . . and instead thereof, to introduce Arbitrary and Tyrannical Government against Law.”

Obama has moved to subvert the fundamental laws and government of the United States, by refusing to enforce DOMA which is congressional legislation passed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. He has issued an executive order which circumvents federal immigration law, granting nearly a million illegal immigrants the right to be protected from removal which the law demands. These are just a few of his attempt to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

So in plain English, President Obama should face impeachable offenses that can be determined in the House of Representatives.

Begin now to take your first steps of many to protect the integrity of your Second Amendment U.S. Constitution’s right to protect your family. Today, tonight and tomorrow consider: what are you prepared to do to protect your family?

( click to let me know what you think )

UPDATE! Benghazi CIA Operators Told To Stand Down; Fallen Navy Seal Dad “The President & Hillary Did Not Tell Me The Truth”

kswb-ohoto-glen-doherty-and-ty-woods-20120913

CIA Operators, Glenn Dougherty and Tyrone Woods, heard the cries from the CIA safe house nearby.  All accounts have these men fighting until their deaths.  But what we know now is that not only did they send 3 separate requests for help, they were told to “Stand Down”.  Fox News reports that

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. Consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”

They ignored those orders.  They went to the rescue of Ambassador Stevens and the other Americans on scene.  They took fire, rescued as many as they could, but could not find Ambassador Stevens, so they returned to the CIA “annex” located a few miles away.  At that point they started to receive mortar fire, and they called again for help.  And that request was denied, too. They were denied a total of 3 times.

 FOX  is the only Main Steam Media reporting on Benghazi, you can find the whole report here.  This part of this story is still breaking, we will continue to update as needed. Update below.

There are some stories that hit a chord, when you sit down to write, there is a fear you won’t convey the proper words, sometimes there are no words.  Being that the Main Stream Media is ignoring “all things Benghazi” its up to us, regular Americans, to do “their” job and spread the truth.  To spread the truth so these heroes will not have died in vain.  With that said, this  story will enrage you, and it should.

Charles Woods is the father of Tyrone Woods, the ex-Navy Seal who answered the call from the Benghazi “CIA Safe House” which was attacked on September 11th, 2012.  Tyrone didn’t make it out alive, but not before he fought valiantly for  several hours, taking out dozens of terrorists.  When Tyrone’s body was brought back via Andrew’s Air Force base, his father Charles was on hand to receive his slain son’s flag draped coffin.  After Obama and Hillary spoke, Charles was greeted separately by Obama and Hillary.  As Obama greeted Charles, Charles stated:

“…his face was pointed toward me, but he could not look me in the eye, he looked somewhere over my shoulder, and his handshake was like a dead fish.  I am a retired Judge, and it was my job to know when someone is telling the truth, his voice was not forceful–not like ‘I am really sorry about this Mr. Woods’, no he was not sorry or remorseful.  I could tell he wasn’t being truthful.  I didn’t speak out before, but after I learned they knew, I want to know who it was that gave the order to not protect…to not send in troops? ” (emphasis mine)

Mr. Woods goes on to relate his encounter then with Hillary Clinton.  Hillary, gave him a “hug”, and he thanked her for taking the time to come and speak with him.  Mr. Woods goes on to state:

“…..first off she said she was “sorry”, her countenance was not good, she then tells me ‘we will make sure the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted’ and I could tell, she was not telling me the truth, I mean she is smarter than me, I’m sure, and she knew she was not telling me the truth…”

Charles Woods also was incensed by VP Joe Biden.  Blundering Joe is one thing, but what he said to Mr. Woods is so crass  and in this case, so offensive:

….then Joe Biden in a real ‘boisterous” voice says ‘yea, I’ve gotten a call like that in the middle of the night, hey let me ask you something, did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?’

Yea, Joe, I’m sure watching that live feed, watching men who go in and take fire, realizing at some point they were it, no back-up would be coming, God forgive you, Obama and Hillary.  God help us.  Obama, you- Joe and Panetta were meeting at 5pm during this attack, and CIA sources report it would be the POTUS who would have to say “stand down”.  And all you have to offer this slain hero’s Dad has to do with the anatomy of his private parts?

Let me say why this story is so very important right now.  Charles Woods says he is a man of faith, and that one thing he knows for sure—is that his son did not die in vain.  As it stands, this story—Tyrone Woods’ story and all 4 dead Americans, their deaths may well be swept under the rug by the Main Stream Media, the Benghazi cover-up forgotten in a few weeks.  So, for these Americans deaths to be not in vain, we must make this the turning point—it would be the turning point in this Election if it had the same press as a Cindy Sheehan.

This Country may well perish for lack of knowledge–information.  I know one thing, most Americans are good honorable people.  Many are just not “plugged in” to these events, and they then have no idea that we have a President who lies, who dishonors, who is so arrogant, who is condescending.   He thinks he can “lecture” and use “mock anger” as he did in that second debate over Benghazi.   I don’t think I will ever forget his superb acting when he reeled around at Romney saying “I take it as an offense for anyone to suggest that I don’t take this seriously, it is I who has to stand over those graves, meet those families, and to suggest I or anyone in my Administration would politicize such a thing…well is despicable”.

No, they Obama, Biden, and Hillary just stood over those coffins and lied, and they felt no remorse.  These people do not  represent me,  they do not represent who America is—this really has nothing whatsoever to do with Politics.  This has to do with honor, and decency, who who we are as Americans.  I know many of you wanted to believe that Obama was going to be the next Abe Lincoln, a man who would bring us all together.  You wanted to believe he would be fair, that he was for the poor, he was for the disenfranchised. I am sorry, I wanted that too—but its time to face the truth.  He is none of those things.

Are we so numb to Charles Wood’s pain?   We can’t bring his son back, a son who died for our Freedom.  But we can honor him, by promising to do what we can, to restore America’s honor.  And that has to start with the defeat of Obama and his regime.

Hear Charles Woods interview on FOX here.

Look to the lady who could lead

Monica Morill and Margaret Thatcher

Monica Morill and former Prime Minister Thatcher

Hillary is facing a Monica moment. With the unveiling of the Benghazi catastrophe, ‘disgraceful, embarrassing and deadly’ is the obvious description used to portray current U.S. foreign policy. This is a narrative that could have been avoided, if the people responsible listened to the warning signs, we know this. But even after September 11, numerous opportunities have been squandered to share the truth about the Benghazi attack and the death of four Americans. What disappoints millions of voting Americans is the haze of information surrounding the attacks, the lack of clarity regarding who is in charge, and the pitiful, flawed leadership.

The implications are stunning. Joe Biden’s comment: “We did not know that they [Ambassador Stevens and Americans] wanted more security there” in Libya, parallels Bill Clinton’s, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…Monica Lewinsky,” statement. The additional excuses surrounding the Benghazi attacks, now publicly questioned, are deplorable and unconvincing. However, let’s not look to Joe Biden who has been on the wrong side of American foreign policy consistently for 30 years, let’s not look to the overall wobbly nature of leaders in the Obama Administration thanks to Valerie Jarrett and Obama himself.

It’s time now that we reflect on the true leadership of a woman who had clear, decisive, and powerful leadership. She was a lady among the firsts, not the first Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, nor the First Lady Hillary Clinton (who claims many firsts), but the first lady Prime Minister of the UK, Margaret Thatcher.

The precision of Thatcher’s decision-making was exceptional. She stood by her open choices, nothing was hidden, she followed through with principled conviction when many around her surrendered to political convenience, and once her assessment was made rarely did Thatcher ever back down. True she had one of the blessed political unions of the century with Ronald Reagan, and their combined strength was in foreign policy. The most striking example between Thatcher and Reagan was their response to Cold War strategies, which strengthened and compounded one another. They stood firm in the face of the Soviet deployment of cruise and nuclear missiles. Thatcher was an ironclad lady, yet softened by the Hollywood personality and tough spirit of a gentleman. The political cooperation between the U.S. and UK amidst criticisms of higher military spending was challenging, but the collective leadership by Thatcher and Reagan was crucial to ending the Cold War.

Why is this reflection so important now? At the center of the Benghazi questioning, Americans are witnessing the opposite of the Thatcher legacy; the Obama Administration is desperately vacillating. The choices that have been and continue to be made do not produce answers, the wavering choices the Obama Administration makes simply produces more questions.

Political pundits are recalling Hillary’s trend of standing by her man. Hillary’s decision to repair her marriage with Bill after his numerous and very public extra-marital affairs is her personal choice and her blessing to forgive. Likewise, Hillary decided to suspend her 2008 Presidential Campaign and support Obama, a massive decision she needed to weigh carefully. But when Hillary chose to end her opposition to Barack Obama she was also choosing to enter a new relationship with him, and more importantly a subsequent political marriage or union with the American people as Secretary of State, for better or worse. Hillary now faces a very similar defining moment with Barack Obama as she did with Bill, with the exception of one key distinction. Will Hillary stand among the betrayers or among the betrayed? She has clear and distinct choices here. Hillary can remain in the Obama Administration and face the political consequences of her decision, or Hillary can abandon the Obama Administration and come clean about what really happened. Hillary’s decision needs to be crystal clear, as significant as an earnest utterance from the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher.

Hillary faced a personal dilemma when she had to decide whether to remain married to Bill, when it came to marital infidelity. But the decision she faces between now and November 6 is far more serious, it is a question of national political infidelity, her commitment to U.S. national security. Hillary knows Obama has been unfaithful to this country, a majority of the public are now aware of Obama’s infidelity to his Presidential Oath. Hillary is at a crossroads. Will she overlook the political betrayal going on in Obama’s Administration or will she sever the political union with Obama? The world is watching very closely. Hillary’s decision to be with Bill is a very personal one and something that should be left up respectfully between them both. But Hillary’s decision to remain with Obama is a very public decision and could undeniably affect her relationship with Americans forever.

When Obama, Biden and Hillary cannot do their jobs without blaming someone else, when they are unable to work together coherently and successfully on foreign policy, this is a telltale sign of confusion, desperation, and incompetence. This is the opposite of Thatcher and Reagan’s relationship and Thatcher’s tactful leadership.

Let’s look at what has been: the details of failures that have occurred over the past few months by the Commander in Chief, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State. But let’s also look at what could be when we view the history of dedicated leadership particularly when it comes to women like Margaret Thatcher effectively guiding her country in difficult times, making the tough choices to be honest, adhering to principled conviction, and never cowering to lies and deception.

Originally posted at the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research

Bill Clinton told Hillary To Resign, US Arming ‘Syrian Rebels’ With Ties To Al Queda

151851838_10

Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, came forward to “take responsibility overall” for the attacks  at Benghazi, but per Ed Klein we now know behind the scenes Bill Clinton advised his wife  to resign over the possible criminal fallout of the Benghazi massacre.  Today we learn from sources  that not only did Hillary ask for added security, and was denied, but her closest advisers strongly suggested she seek legal counsel just days after the attack.  Why?  Why did “they” deny Hillary’s requests for added security to Benghazi, and  why is this a situation in which a Secretary of State would need personal legal counsel?  Could the Benghazi fallout, go beyond what a Public Relations firm can handle?  I’d say YES.  Could this be a criminal act, negligence,  dereliction of duty, which resulted in murder?  I’d  say YES.  And I’d say that Hillary is telling the truth as the “source” of these latest developments come straight from her “legal counsel”.   Hillary did prior to September 11th, 2012 order added security for Benghazi, and those requests were denied—but by who?

To fully understand what happened in Benghazi, we need to step back.  Ambassador Stevens was located in a CIA safehouse (otherwise known as the building burned down during attack)–that  location is where on the night of the attack he dined with the Turkish General Counsel.  Why?  Why was Stevens meeting with this Turkish official? Apparently, in reports the US was gun running weapons through Turkey to aid the Syrian Rebels, but the real kicker here is that we handed over 400 tons in one shipment, to Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood, who are the leaders of these so called “Syrian Rebels”.  We can speculate what the Turkish General Counsel talked with Ambassador Stevens about that  night—but what is clear is that the Al Queda backed forces were on scene whilst the two men dined.

The ‘Libyan forces’ called the Feb. 17th Brigade, were the extra security which manned that CIA safe house.  On the night of the attack, Sean Smith, sent this message via a gaming app

”Assuming we don’t die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police’ that guard the compound taking pictures.”

What is interesting to note here, is the quotations around the word police.  Here, he is referring to the Feb. 17th Brigade, and what it tells me is he is questioning just who these ‘police’ are with, why  are they casing the safe house taking pictures?  We now know that this “Brigade” is an affiliate of Al Queda and they fought under the “Black Flag” of  Al Queda.  Diana West, an expert in Middle East affairs has this to offer:

The Obama administration, however, threw in Uncle Sam’s lot with bad guys – the “rebels,” the “martyrs,” the Muslim Brothers, the whole jihad-happy crew in Libya and the wider Middle East. Uncle Sam, more or less, crossed to the “other side.” It is this alliance or support for “martyrs” and their sympathizers in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Syria that is the betrayal from which Benghazi-gate rises, particularly as our veterans’ cemeteries and hospitals are filled with casualties caused by such “martyrs.”

Let’s cut to the chase.  Benghazi is shaping up to be the worst cover-up ever in the history of the US.  The 12 reports that were filed within the first 24 hours, outlining to the White House exactly what had transpired, never once mention a “protest” or any “video”.  They do mention Al Queda linked group called Ansar al-Sharia, claiming the attacks.  We know that the drone was feeding live video back to the White house “situation room” and that Obama was in a meeting with Panetta and Biden at the White House—we know they were informed via those emails of the attack in progress.  Is there any doubt they also were watching this live in real time?

And with that info, Obama strolled out to the Rose Garden, and alluded to this “video”.  In later appearances Obama does talk about the “vile” video, slamming Romney for calling it a “terrorist” attack.  The DOJ indicts and arrests a man, albeit with a shady past—but does his family deserve having a price on their head—do they deserve to never return to their home, due to danger?  Does he deserve to be in protective custody due to death threats from Muslim extremists?  Do the 4 dead Americans, and their families, deserve any of what has gone on?

America stands at the crossroads in history.  The Main Stream Media is protecting Obama, so many Americans do not know these details.  They are hoping to slide through the next 2 weeks and pull out a victory, putting back in power the President who watched our fellow Americans die….and then, went to bed.

Obama, Benghazi, and the Blame Game

Scandals bring out the worst in politicians, and politicians engage in scandalous behavior on a regular basis. Of course the people only end up hearing about the latter when said politicians get caught. Normally, this would happen as the result of members of the traditional media uncovering their dastardly deeds, but the age of investigative journalism in the mainstream media is drawing to a close. Now, it is in the hands of new media, and sometimes, other politicians.

Voice of America (CC)

In the case of the Benghazi scandal, it is a little of each. Now, anyone that believes that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was the result of protest against an anti-Islam film is either delusional, or has been living under a rock for the past couple weeks. In the interest of being thorough, if anyone lost track, they can consult the timeline here. As for the Congressional Hearings, if nothing else, it can be called a “who’s who of the administration that will be thrown under the bus, if they haven’t been already.” Obviously, the lowest on the totem pole are likely to take the worst. But, as we saw in the Vice Presidential debate, someone obviously forgot to get Joe Biden on board with the administration’s official story on the matter. His statement that he didn’t know the Consulate needed more security came off as though the administration as a whole was unaware. The current message is (maybe?) that Biden and Obama didn’t know, implying some sort of disconnect between the Oval Office and the State Department.

Well, maybe that’s more than just implied, since it’s obvious that there is now a rift between Clinton(s) and Obama. That begs the question why Obama would now trust Bill to hit the campaign trail on his behalf – but, who wants to warn him that could blow up in his face? No one? Figured that.

Otherwise, in the endless effort to blame anyone but themselves, the Obama administration is at least attempting to stick with the “evil Republicans cut the State Department budget, so we couldn’t afford more forces there” argument. They shouldn’t expect that to work very well for two reasons. First, it doesn’t fly when one considers the “greening of Europe” initiative pointed out by Congressman Mike Kelly. As was pointed out in the hearings, obviously the State Department has their priorities a little out of order, since they’re spending huge sums of money on electric cars in Europe, while neglecting to provide needed security personnel in the Middle East and North Africa. But apparently the State Department can afford to send an attorney to babysit Congressman Jason Chaffetz on his trip to Libya to investigate the situation. Perhaps that was why Congress cut the budget in the first place? Second, there’s the problem with communication on National Security matters in the White House. We’ve been told for ages now that Obama rarely bothers with National Security briefings. Now, apparently he’s also not interested in hearing requests for increased security at Embassies. That is a rather odd decision under the circumstances, but who are we to question his choices.

And none of this could possibly be connected to the general state of denial within this administration when it comes to terrorism. We are no longer at war with terrorism. Osama bin Laden is dead. That fixed everything. There couldn’t be an increased threat from al Qaeda. The message is clear – the State Department is right to avoid calling those that attacked the Benghazi Consulate terrorists. And there wasn’t any real danger in Libya, so it was right to scale back security there. Stephanie Cutter is right – it is all Mitt Romney’s fault, and he’s politicizing the situation. Don’t believe her? Just ask Alec Baldwin.

Move along folks, nothing to see here!

Obama and Benghazi-Gate

Secretary of Defense (CC)

It’s been 17 days since the attack on the Consulate at Benghazi, and Obama still hasn’t said publicly that it was a terrorist attack. He’s left that to his surrogates, including Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The bizarre situation that we’re left with is a dead-asleep press that is largely ignoring the entire situation, with few exceptions. While CNN has managed to get far more information on the ground in Libya than even our FBI has (since they have yet to make it to the scene, as of reports on the evening of September 27th), they are not really saying much of anything beyond the canned responses that have apparently been approved by the administration. And when CNN was reporting slightly on the contents of a journal owned by Ambassador Chris Stevens, the response from the administration was that it should have been given to the family without any reports on its contents hitting the airwaves. Everyone in the U.S. should have seen enough crime dramas over the years to know that is an extremely bizarre statement, presuming that the government ever had any intention of investigating the attack in the first place. Any normal person would think that knowing what Stevens was writing in the days before the attack might be relevant to the investigation, right?

Secretary of Defense (CC)

And now we’re down to trying to figure out who knew what, and when. For now, it’s become clear that the administration knew from day one that this was a terrorist attack. It had nothing to do with the video that slandered Islam. In the coming months, it wouldn’t be surprising to find out that none of the attacks on Western embassies in the Middle East and North Africa had anything to do with that film. But, beyond all of that, the fact that the administration has admitted fairly quickly that they knew from the beginning the true nature of the attack in Benghazi is unsettling. It was not a situation where the press was exerting any great pressure on them about the situation – they were taking the story they were being spoon fed with the noted exceptions of FoxNews, and a few foreign press agencies. While I’m not generally a conspiracy theorist, this definitely causes me to think there’s something more to this whole story.

While the administration has been very quick to point out what a great man Ambassador Stevens was – that’s to be expected – the fact that he was assigned to Libya is a little puzzling. It’s become clear over the past couple weeks that Libya was far less stable than the administration was leading people to believe – and they knew it. Stevens specialized in the Middle East and North Africa, and admittedly, there were other far more stable outposts in the region where he could have been assigned. I suggest this right now because of one glaring fact – Stevens was openly gay. Given the level of hatred and intolerance seen exerted against gays in Islamist nations, the last place any responsible member of the administration should want to place an openly gay diplomat is one where there is even a hint of radical Islamic activity. Either the administration is entirely incompetent, or someone really didn’t care about the safety of Stevens at all when choosing his assignment. Of course, these are issues that may or may not have been addressed in that journal the administration didn’t want CNN reporting about – and apparently didn’t want to read themselves.

There is no proof apparent of what I’ve suggested above. It is merely an observation, based on the few facts available right now – call it an exercise in basic logic. And perhaps it is a suggestion to the few people out there that are really interested in finding out the truth about this attack. Beyond searching for information on the radicals in Libya, another priority should be investigating what was really going on in the administration before the attack. Did Stevens have any enemies in the administration? Were there any under-the-table deals going on between the administration and Islamist organizations on the ground in Libya? Is there really a credible connection to al-Qaeda, or is it merely a matter of a single man with previous associations with that organization having a hand in the planning? And, like any other questionable situation in the Federal Government, how high does it really go? That last one is very important, primarily because Obama detractors have a horrible habit of giving him far too much credit when it comes to just about everything. Bluntly, he’s too much of an amateur in foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, to personally manage being puppetmaster on something like this. The Islam apologist policies he follows are really his undoing in the region – radical Muslims respect him less than the right-wing in the U.S. does because of it. The bottom line is that we are nowhere near the end of this one, if there is even one person determined to stay the course, and figure out exactly what happened. And it will be interesting to see what the truth really is.

Obama’s Carter Moment in the Middle East

While it’s not happening practically on the eve of the election, the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi are rapidly shaping up to be like President Carter’s situation with Iran in 1980. But, before the Romney camp can start celebrating, there are some very important issues that need addressing when it comes to the fumbling of the current administration. And there are some loose ends that need to be tied together.

First, let’s take a look at the events of yesterday, before the attacks. In the morning here in the States, Obama delivered remarks at the Pentagon. The more cynical among us were probably surprised that he limited himself at least a little, when it came to taking credit for the death of Osama bin Laden.

Most of the Americans we lost that day had never considered the possibility that a small band of terrorists halfway around the world could do us such harm. Most had never heard the name al Qaeda. And yet, it’s because of their sacrifice that we’ve come together and dealt a crippling blow to the organization that brought evil to our shores. Al Qaeda’s leadership has been devastated and Osama bin Laden will never threaten us again. Our country is safer and our people are resilient.

Perhaps the reference to the devastation of Al Qaeda’s leadership was alluding to the most recent death that has been brought up in context with the Cairo attack. But, that is something to consider a little later. For now, let’s leap to much later in the day, but still before the Cairo attack.

Andrew Kaczynski – @BuzzFeedAndrew

Only images of this tweet remain, this one from Andrew Kaczynski on BuzzFeed. The debate over government accounts deleting tweets, and the Library of Congress archives of those electronic communications can wait for another time. By the morning of September 12th eastern time, the Obama administration was backing down from this initial statement. It is not a reaction. The embassy doubled-down on the sentiment after the attack. But, this one came before it started, presumably because the embassy personnel knew there might be a riot in the first place. Questions and reprisals flew over this, and the administration’s attempt to back down from this position arguably is falling flat. Diplomatic personnel do not communicate with the world without guidance, period. Claiming that this was “unauthorized” is worse than admitting to the position, because it implies that there is a rogue element within the diplomatic corps that has the ability to communicate on behalf of this administration without any sort of guidance or supervision. And, bluntly, it is silly. This statement is typical of this administration, that has bent over backwards to appease Islamist organizations. One has to suspend disbelief to take this morning’s quasi-retraction of the statement seriously, especially since paraphrased forms of it were in both Obama’s and Secretary Clinton’s statements on these events – or event, depending on how one interpreted them.

That brings us to the tragedy that overshadowed the Cairo incident, and monopolized the official statements from the administration. Over the coming months, there is no doubt that there will be arguments over whether the Iran Hostage Crisis was better or worse than the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three diplomatic staff members. Secretary Clinton was quick to point out that Libyans stepped up to help Americans, and defend the Consulate, including a mention that they carried the Ambassador’s body to the hospital. But, it’s unlikely that is the whole story. Before her speech, news had already broken that contradicted at least part of the Secretary’s comments. The whispers are already out there that the Libyans might have been involved in the attack, and that security at the Consulate wasn’t sufficient.

Given that, there is a possibility that these two attacks may be utterly unconnected, not even sharing cause. The anti-Mohammed movie is a rather thin excuse, even with many radicals in play in both nations. One of the filmmakers is in hiding, and another that has been attributed with the work is associated with a Coptic Christian organization in America. The fact that the film had been promoted to one extent or another by Terry Jones, of “Burn a Q’uran Day” fame, further muddies the water. Regardless, all accounts state that the film itself is laughable, poorly made, and definitely wouldn’t have been destined for anything but demise in obscurity if it wasn’t for these events. Perhaps it was enough to spark the flag desecration and chanting about Osama bin Laden in Cairo, but buying that it sparked the armed attack in Benghazi would be foolhardy. Conversely, accepting Secretary Clinton’s contentions that Ambassador Stevens was well-liked and accepted in Libya might not be intelligent either. That is by no means an implication that Stevens was doing anything wrong. It is a suggestion that maybe he was meeting more resistance in his attempts to help the Libyans than the administration is willing to admit publicly. That certainly makes more sense than blaming this all on an obscure, poorly made film.

And, in all of this, it seems that the media is happily avoiding one subject that this administration probably has no desire to cover. That is the question of the Muslim Brotherhood. Obama would have everyone believe that this an innocuous social service organization, that many current and former Islamic terrorists just happened to be associated with at one point or another during their lives. On the other side, alarmists cry that the organization is kin with Satan himself, and is hell bent on the destruction of the West. As with most things in life, the truth probably lies somewhere in between. For the purposes of bridging cultural gaps, perhaps it would be better to compare it with another organization that Americans are probably a little more familiar with – Sinn Fein, the political arm of Irish Republican Army. This suggestion is in the context of defining the function of the Muslim Brotherhood, not to imply direct connection between that organization and any terrorist groups. The MB has been scrupulous about keeping itself separate from those groups, and that is plainly illustrated by the fact that terrorists are apparently not welcome in the organization. They move on to more radical action after leaving the MB, period. But, that doesn’t change the fact that many Islamic terrorists get initial experience in Islamic activism within the MB. Sinn Fein was also careful to stay above the fray, and did not dirty its hands directly in the terrorist activities of the IRA. That is where the similarity lies, and there alone. Where Sinn Fein was implicated in funding IRA activities, the MB has not been connected financially or otherwise with any known terrorist organizations – at least that has not been uncovered, or reported widely.

The story behind these events is still unfolding, and it is possible that details may continue to filter out to the public even beyond November. But, the current take away is that yet again, the Obama administration has shown itself to be wholly disorganized, as shown with the initial communications from the Cairo Embassy via Twitter. To suggest that the President is beyond his depth is probably an understatement. Cairo and Benghazi do not exist in a vacuum, and Obama has done a great deal of harm to this nation’s diplomatic relations with the only true ally in the region – Israel. And that in itself is yet another story illustrating the amateurish foreign policy management in this administration. Whether or not this becomes a coffin nail for the Obama camp in November remains to be seen, but it would be bluntly insane if the Romney camp did not leave it alone for now, only to resurrect it late next month.

I Know Who Said to Take Out God and Jerusalem from the DNC Platform

Ok. So I don’t exactly know, but I can offer an educated guess. Before we get into that, a little background is necessary.

DonkeyHotey (CC)


Let’s go back to 2003. Back then, James Moore was starting his own little cottage industry on the back of Karl Rove. That “other-Moore” released a couple books, and one was made into a movie – “Bush’s Brain.” Of course, the whole marketing scheme was that George W. Bush couldn’t possibly be smart enough to do it all by himself. Rove was the puppet-master, and he was ruthless political operator manipulating the hapless Bush. Liberals ate this up with relish, and for at least a little while, they actually knew who Rove was (now, they apparently don’t, outside the Beltway at least.) Why was this idea so popular? Well, Bush did it to himself, in some ways. There just had to be someone very smart helping him along the way. How else could a former frat-boy make it to 1600, daddy being a previous resident notwithstanding?

Just a year later, Barack Obama comes on the national scene, at that year’s DNC convention. Of course this charismatic man was being groomed to run for the presidency. Everyone knew it, just as we can easily predict the rising stars in the GOP today. But how did Obama get there, and more importantly, how did he get into the White House? We all looked at Bush’s pedigree, and the left immediately leaped on any perceived deficiencies they could, leaving a huge market for Moore’s books on the topic. But, that was just a couple years into Bush’s first term. Only now are the Republicans starting to really delve into the past of the elusive Obama. Hopefully, it’s not “too little, too late.”

Instead of Moore, there’s Richard Miniter, and his book, Leading from Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him. I humbly suggest that it was no coincidence that the phrase “leading from behind” was used more than once on the floor of the RNC convention, by no less than Condi Rice, for one. This book suggests that there isn’t just one Rove in the background pulling strings in the current administration, but no less than three. That is, if you are only going to count the women.

In turns, Obama was (and still is) influenced highly by certain women in his life. That list includes Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Valerie Jarrett. While both Michelle and Pelosi obviously have some sway in Obama’s world all the time, admittedly Pelosi’s real time of influence was during the debates and passage of the Healthcare Reform Act. No one is likely to forget her infamous “we’ve got to pass it to know what’s in it” plea, and Miniter actually contends that we should be referring to that legislation as “Pelosi-Care,” not Obamacare, to give credit where it is actually due. As for the current debacle with the platform, it’s highly unlikely that either Michelle or Pelosi would have suggested such a thing as removing reference to God and Jerusalem.

So, that leaves Hillary Clinton and Valerie Jarrett to consider. Sure, it’s possible that both of these women had a hand in this, for different reasons. While all the Dems have been making hay about Bill Clinton’s speech at the convention, I’ve been quietly considering Romney’s response to it. It really wasn’t a very good speech for Obama. If nothing else, Bill Clinton is good at smiling while delivering an obscure insult. It could be argued that is precisely what that speech was. Does anyone really think that Bill forgot about Reagan’s inheritance from Carter, and what he did with it? If you do, you must be a Democrat. So yes, there is a strong argument for Hillary suggesting, or at least supporting, the removal of the reference to God and Jerusalem in the Democratic Platform. Or you could buy into Alan Dershowitz’s contention that it’s the result of “rogue elements”. Not very convincing, however, it is interesting to consider Dershowitz’s opinion on Hamas.

And that leaves Valerie Jarrett. She is arguably the one that conservatives should be calling “Obama’s Brain.” And just who is she, really? To hear it from the Obama’s, she’s a very old friend. Considering they met sometime in the 1990’s, it does make one wonder what it takes to become an “old friend.” Otherwise, Jarrett resides in Rove’s old office, and some might even say that she has greater access to and influence on Obama than Rove ever did with Bush. And, by all accounts, Jarrett is a radical left-wing political player, and probably the biggest proponent of secularism in the current administration. Miniter’s book does cover the history of Jarrett and the Obama’s such as can be gleaned from the few that are willing to talk about her. Of course, it’s not likely anyone will get many statements on her going forward, and certainly not from anyone like Robert Gibbs, who she probably caused to end up outside the White House.

So, my bet is on Valerie Jarrett being the culprit, and there is no way it was a typo. And, like many other mistakes in this administration, there never was any intention for there to be a real vote on the issue on the floor of the convention. The fact that the delegates actually spoke their minds had to be highly annoying to Obama. After all, the only deity he wants to see people worshiping is him, right?

When in Doubt – Call in Al Gore

Now, bear in mind that the Dems will undoubtedly claim that Al Gore came out on this all by himself, without any prompting from them. Could actually be the truth. But, other than a really massive grudge against America for 2000, why would Gore bother bringing this up now?

simone.brunozzi (CC)


Abolishing the Electoral College system is brought up from time to time. It’s usually dismissed out of hand, and should be this time. The only useful thing to consider here is the fact that Gore is bringing it up at a point when it makes absolutely no sense – not that he’s known for making sense, that is.

So, if we’re running on the premise that there is some prompting from the Dems here, what does that mean about their strategy going forward? Yes, they will be going for whatever they can to keep the spotlight off the economy, and Obama’s massive failures in general. But, does this also mean that the Obama camp might be thinking that their only hope is to rely on the popular vote?

It’s no secret that the Obama camp is in near panic mode, begging for money at least once daily via email, and any other way it can. And then there’s the situation with Hillary Clinton. In case you missed it, she’s going to the Cook Islands for a very important conference with a bunch of nominal nations that rely heavily on the U.S. for many things – like trade – but rarely show up in the headlines here unless there’s some sort of atrocity or natural disaster there. Yep, that’s MUCH more important than the DNC next week! Needless to say, people aren’t even bothering to whisper that this is probably to protect Hillary as much as possible from Obama fallout in 2016 – they’re shouting it from the rooftops at this point.

So what’s a floundering presidential campaign to do when it can’t manage to fill venues for its “coming out party”? Well, it could invite 20,000 Muslims. Why not? It’s not like the folks of Charlotte weren’t already annoyed with the Dem party endorsing gay marriage – sure, they didn’t vote to make such unions absolutely illegal, right?

If you’re getting lost here, my point is that the Obama camp has sunk so low at this point, throwing Al Gore in the mix couldn’t possibly make it worse, could it? I think maybe we should ask Clint Eastwood’s version of Obama on that one – at least we’ll get a more intelligent answer! But, here’s to Al Gore, for bringing up yet another non-issue to distract everyone. Next!

Grasping at Energy Straws

In February 2012 New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer called upon Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to request Saudi Arabia increase their oil production to make up for potential disruptions in the world’s oil supply resulting from Iranian saber-rattling. Schumer’s unhidden rationale was that such a pledge from the Saudis would drive down gasoline prices in America

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/216057-schumer-saudi-arabis-plan-to-increae-oil-output-will-lower-gas-prices

This ill-advised strategy was clearly politically driven. While the idea of higher gasoline prices, and the accompanying increase in the price of gas dependent goods and services is consistently rejected by average Americans, this is a blatantly partisan call for a short-term fix. This temporary, non-solution, suggested in order to perpetuate the false narrative that America’s economy is improving thanks to “progressive” policy decisions does absolutely nothing to reduce America’s dependency on foreign oil. Quite to the contrary, it exacerbates it.

On March 15, 2012 Reuters reported that during British Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent trip to the U.S. the current White House occupant proposed releasing emergency oil reserves as a way to reduce world oil prices.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/03/15/uk-obama-energy-spr-idUKBRE82E00U20120315

Were the White House to make such a decision, it would be yet another desperate attempt to lower gas prices by whatever means possible. Tapping into the emergency oil reserves is a bad idea. Those reserves are there for use during a pressing national emergency. Tapping in to them every time there’s an increase in the price of a barrel of oil is both gross mismanagement and a misguided misapplication of the stockpile. Not only will the reserves need to be replenished with what might well turn out to be more expensive oil, tapping into them now does nothing to address the long-term problem.

“progressives” continue to grasp at short-term straws frantically trying to make themselves look good in the eyes of low information, sound bite voters. They’re willing to do whatever it takes to win the 2012 election, even if decisions made to make themselves look good in the short term are not sound long term solutions. As radical “progressive” political strategist and leftist hero Saul Alinsky dictated: the ends justify the means.

In the interest of national security and job creation, the United States should put Americans back to work delivering American energy to Americans. This is the best way for America to become energy independent while boosting the economy. Trying to force “green energy” on America’s economy overnight will only contribute to the collapse of that economy. Evidence: Spain’s troubled financial situation and extremely high unemployment.

America doesn’t need a broken economy. America doesn’t need short-term price fixes driven by partisan political decisions. America needs and deserves sound, long term solutions that will result in energy independence.

Drill here. Drill now.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/grasping-at-energy-straws/

Clinton's State Department to discredit Russian elections?

NEW YORK, January 31, 2012 — Anthony T. Salvia, Director of the American Institute in Ukraine, and consultant in international public advocacy and governmental affairs, has said that Vladimir Putin is still the most popular politician in Russia.

He said: “If the Russian presidential election were held next week, Prime Minster Vladimir Putin would likely win with 52-58% of the popular vote-some 20 points fewer than the result he achieved in 2004, but still representing broad popular support in line with Western standards of electoral success. If his position were to slip between then and March 4th, and he were to receive less than 50% of the vote, he would find himself in a run-off, most likely with Communist party leader Gennady Zyuganov, over whom he would certainly prevail.

“So says Valery Fyodorov, general director of VTsIOM, one of Russia’s leading public opinion research organizations. He recently presented detailed polling results to an international conference organized by the Mitteleuropa Initiative in Vienna.

“He said a greater danger for Putin than Zyuganov would be the inevitable efforts of opposition forces to de-legitimize his election-which they will do even if the process is conducted freely and fairly.

“US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provoked Moscow’s ire when she labeled the Russian State Duma elections of last December 4th “neither free nor fair,” demanding that each and every instance of fraud be investigated.

“Fyodorov contradicted this narrative. He told your correspondent that while vote fraud certainly did take place, it did not do so on such a scale as to alter the results, which corresponded broadly to exit and pre-election polling nationwide. Nevertheless, the opposition-i.e., the disaffected members of the urban middle class, the liberal intelligentsia, Communists and Russian nationalists who took to the streets to protest electoral chicanery- as well as much of the Western media and some leading Western politicians, have sought to de-legitimize the Duma elections, and, thereby, the Russian government.

“More of the same can be expected in the aftermath of the presidential vote on March 4th.

“Some opposition forces will surely seek to portray any decline in Putin’s percentage of the vote since the last time he ran (certain to happen), a lower rate of voter participation (as those who feel there is no acceptable alternative to Putin stay home), and an upsurge in support for the parties of the left, including the Communist Party (likely in view of their strong showing in the State Duma elections of last December, although as of this writing, Putin is rising in the polls) as popular disavowal of Putin. For good measure, they will allege voter fraud-whether or not it took place-in an effort to discredit and de-legitimize Putin and the Russian system generally.

“Secretary Clinton and her merry band of humanitarian interventionists at Foggy Bottom will be only too happy to egg them on. They will be aided and abetted by the Republican foreign policy establishment, which shares Mrs. Clinton’s antipathy to Putin-not because, in their view, he is not a democrat (they could not care less about that), but because he dares to resist Washington’s efforts to turn Russia into a nominally independent satellite by standing up for Russia’s legitimate national interests.”

« Older Entries Recent Entries »