Those ads should run on TV too
these ads cant be real!
OMG... if they are, then she DOES want to go to war!!!
What the hell????
I think the old girl really does want a war with Russia. No kidding. She started wars in Libya, Egypt, Syria, kept them going in Afghan and Iraq, has given Iran nukes, and now wants to fight Putin over bragging rights, I suppose.
She’s insane, America, don’t you see it?
I LOVE using their techniques against them!
Aug 2015
Makes all the sense in the world that this is what they're doing as it was the Soros-supported Obama administration that has been helping to strengthen the Russians.
The O admin, not only handed Putin everything that he wanted on all-important missile defense and nukes, including the Iran nuke deal, which Putin loves and claims to have played a major role in, he (Obama) practically took apart our military. So don't so easily fall for the smoke and mirrors BS coming from the Russians, or this administration. The facts speak for themselves...
____________________________________
From the campaign trail, 2008...
A video has surfaced of Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama talking on his plans for strategic issues such as nuclear weapons and missile defense.
The full text from the video, as released, reads as follows:
Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you've been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.
First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.[i.e. not win it]
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.
I will slow our development of future combat systems.
And I will institute an independent "Defense Priorities Board" to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.
You know where I stand. I've fought for open, ethical and accountable government my entire public life. I don't switch positions or make promises that can't be kept. I don't posture on defense policy and I don't take money from federal lobbyists for powerful defense contractors. As president, my sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the American people. Thanks so much.
Article: Obama Pledges Cuts in Missile Defense, Space, and Nuclear Weapons Programs:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090412030633/http://missilethreat.com/archives/id.7086/detail.asp
"MissileThreat.com is a project of The Claremont Institute devoted to understanding and promoting the requirements for the strategic defense of the United States."
__________________________________________________________
From Investor's Business Daily, Jan 2012:
Appeasement: From ObamaCare to recess appointments, honoring the Constitution has not been an administration hallmark. But when it comes to betraying secrets to mollify the Russians, it becomes a document the president hides behind.
It was bad enough that the 2012 defense authorization bill signed by President Obama set America on a downward spiral of military mediocrity.
He also issued a signing statement, something he once opposed, saying that language in the bill aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on the U.S. Standard Missile-3 - linchpin of our missile defense - might impinge on his constitutional foreign-policy authority.
Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they'd be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.
The president is required to certify that any technology shared will not be passed on to third parties such as China, North Korea or Iran, that the Russians will not use transferred secrets to develop countermeasures and that the Russians are reciprocating in sharing missile-defense technology. ..."
"In his signing statement, Obama said he would treat these legal restrictions as 'non-binding' and that 'my administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 (sic) in a manner that does not interfere with the president's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications.'
Betraying our secrets is easy for a president who betrayed allies Poland and the Czech Republic to placate Moscow.
Poland was to host ground-based interceptors such as those we've deployed in California and Alaska, with missile-tracking radar deployed in the Czech Republic.
Obama pulled the plug when Moscow objected. Never mind, he said, we have a better approach: a four-phase plan that calls for using three versions of the Navy's Standard SM-3 interceptor missile that forms the backbone of its Aegis missile-defense system.
The fourth phase consists of a missile still on the drawing board scheduled for deployment by 2020, a version of the SM-3 called the Block IIB. It would intercept hostile missiles in the "early intercept" phase before an enemy missile could release its warheads and decoys. The Russians want the SM-3's secrets, and Obama appears to be willing to turn them over.
The president wants to save the New Start Treaty, which the Russians have threatened to abandon if we try to fully implement President Reagan's dream of defeating a nuclear missile attack.
Russia has unilaterally asserted that any qualitative or quantitative improvement in U.S. missile defenses would be grounds for withdrawal from the treaty.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily:
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010912-597158-obama-gives-russia-missile-defense-secrets.htm#ixzz3jXmMbVwY
___________________________________________________
March 2012...
"Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:
Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him to give me space."
Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ..."
Obama: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."
Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
"This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility." That statement tells us much about the president's mindset.
The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration.
Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president's comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.
In addition, there is the phrase "on all these issues," implying more is at stake than just missile defense."
Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn't be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/
__________________________________________________________
"according to some calculations, the Uranium One deal, involving top Clinton donors Frank Guistra and Ian Telfer, has transferred as much as 50 percent of projected American uranium production to Kremlin control."
***********************************************
RUSSIAGATE
Who paid Bill Clinton's $2.5 million commission and $500k speaking fee for brokering the sale of 20% of America's uranium deposits to Russia?
You are speaking about a really interesting deal that ended up giving Vladimir Putin and the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.
Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. ..."
If only someone should buy some tv time with those. Leave off the H-> (she didn’t think through that logo) and say it’s sponsored by #NotHellary.
“When Donald Trump and I observe that, as I’ve said, in Syria, in Iran, in Ukraine, that the small and bullying leader of Russia has been stronger on the world stage than this administration, that’s stating painful facts. That’s not an endorsement of Vladimir Putin — that’s an indictment of the weak and feckless leadership of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.”
______________________________
Also from the Oct 5, 2016 first VP debate...
QUIJANO (Moderator): I want to turn now to Syria. Two hundred fifty thousand people, 100,000 of them children, are under siege in Aleppo, Syria. Bunker buster bombs, cluster munitions, and incendiary weapons are being dropped on them by Russian and Syrian militaries. Does the U.S. have a responsibility to protect civilians and prevent mass casualties on this scale, Governor Pence?
PENCE: The United States of America needs to begin to exercise strong leadership to protect the vulnerable citizens and over 100,000 children in Aleppo. Hillary Clinton’s top priority when she became secretary of state was the Russian reset, the Russians reset.
After the Russian reset, the Russians invaded Ukraine and took over Crimea.
And the small and bullying leader of Russia is now dictating terms to the United States to the point where all the United States of America — the greatest nation on Earth — just withdraws from talks about a cease-fire while Vladimir Putin puts a missile defense system in Syria while he marshals the forces and begins — look, we have got to begin to lean into this with strong, broad-shouldered American leadership.
It begins by rebuilding our military. And the Russians and the Chinese have been making enormous investments in the military. We have the smallest Navy since 1916. We have the lowest number of troops since the end of the Second World War. We’ve got to work with Congress, and Donald Trump will, to rebuild our military and project American strength in the world.
But about Aleppo and about Syria, I truly do believe that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones, so that families and vulnerable families with children can move out of those areas, work with our Arab partners, real time, right now, to make that happen.
And secondly, I just have to tell you that the provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength.
And if Russia chooses to be involved and continue, I should say, to be involved in this barbaric attack on civilians in Aleppo, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime to prevent them from this humanitarian crisis that is taking place in Aleppo.
There’s a broad range of other things that we ought to do, as well. We ought to deploy a missile defense shield to the Czech Republic and Poland which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama pulled back on out of not wanting to offend the Russians back in 2009.
QUIJANO: Governor, your two minutes are up.
PENCE: We’ve just got to have American strength on the world stage. When Donald Trump becomes president of the United States, the Russians and other countries in the world will know they’re dealing with a strong American president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/us/politics/vice-president-transcript.html
______________________________
And....
PENCE: What we’re dealing with is the — you know, there’s an old proverb that says the Russian bear never dies, it just hibernates.
And the truth of the matter is, the weak and feckless foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has awakened an aggression in Russia that first appeared a few years ago with their move in Georgia, now their move into Crimea, now their move into the wider Middle East.
And all the while, all we do is fold our arms and say we’re not having talks anymore.
To answer your question, we just need American strength. We need to — we need to marshal the resources of our allies in the region, and in the immediate, we need to act and act now to get people out of harm’s way.
Donald Trump slammed President Obama Thursday on TODAY for failing to take a stronger line against President Vladimir Putin in dealing with Ukraine, saying he feared Obama would now make up for lost time with imprudent moves to "show his manhood."
The real estate mogul and reality-TV star, who has criticized Putin for sending military troops into Crimea, said Obama must now take fierce steps to prevent the situation from escalating further.
"We should definitely do sanctions and we have to show some strengths. I mean, Putin has eaten Obama's lunch, therefore our lunch, for a long period of time," Trump said. ..."
http://www.today.com/news/donald-trump-putin-has-eaten-obamas-lunch-ukraine-2D79372098
________________________________________________________
BY: Bill Gertz
October 10, 2014
Russia is moving tactical nuclear weapons systems into recently-annexed Crimea while the Obama administration is backing informal talks aimed at cutting U.S. tactical nuclear deployments in Europe. ..."
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-deploying-tactical-nuclear-arms-in-crimea/
________________________________________________________
Ignore the red and orange lines. They were already on the map when I downloaded it.
NYT REPORT: As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.
Uranium One Company chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations, as well.
============================================
The NYT report noted that these uranium investors also donated to the Clinton Foundation, as follows:
<><> Canadian mining mogul, Frank Giustra, globe-trotting pal of Bill donated $31.3 million and a pledge for $100 million more to the Clinton Foundation. Giustra built a company that later merged with Uranium One. Seems to have facilitated the uranium sell-off. Giustra has a "Clinton-connected foundation" in Canada and will not disclose donors.
<><> Canadian Ian Telfer—donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Mining investor who was chairman of Uranium One when an arm of the Russian government, Rosatom, acquired it.
<><>Paul Reynolds—donated $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation Adviser on 2007 UrAsia-Uranium One merger. Later Reynolds helped raise $260 million for the company. Could be the money-laundering apprat.
<><>Frank Holmes-—donated $250,000 to $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Chief Executive of U.S. Global Investors Inc., which held $4.7 million in Uranium One shares in the first quarter of 2011.
<><> Canadian Neil Woodyer-—Founded Endeavour Mining with Giustra—donated $50,000 to $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Adviser to Uranium One.
<><> GMP Securities Ltd.-—Donating portion of profits to the Clinton Foundation. Worked on debt issue that raised $260 million for Uranium One. (Prime candidate for the money-laundering apparat---aided and abetted under cover of the "do-good foundations.")
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/documents-show-how-russias-troll-army-hit-america
____________________________
Kremlin pays internet trolls to flatter Putin
Ben Hoyle - Moscow
October 11 2013
Russian investigative journalists and bloggers have uncovered an army of internet trolls paid to pour invective on the Kremlin's opponents and heap praise on President Putin.
Posing as job applicants, the reporters discovered the government hacks working at a small company called the St Petersburg Internet Research Agency. ..."
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/article3891720.ece
____________________________
Russian Propaganda Is Taking Over Online Comment Boards
Pamela Engel
May 4, 2014
British newspaper The Guardian notes that recently, readers have been complaining of pro-Russia propaganda being posted in the comments section of articles about Russia and Ukraine.
One reader wrote to The Guardian:
"One need only pick a Ukraine article at random, pick any point in the comments at random, and they will find themselves in a sea of incredibly aggressive and hostile users (the most obvious have accounts created since February 2014 ... but there also exist those who registered with the Guardian before the high point of the crisis) who post the most biased, inciteful [sic] pro-Kremlin, anti-western propaganda that seems as if it's taken from a template, so repetitive are the statements. Furthermore, these comments are consistently capturing inordinate numbers of 'recommends', sometimes on the order of 10 to 12 times what pro-Ukrainian comments receive."
Guardian comment moderators believe this is an orchestrated campaign.
Russia has worked hard to make people believe that the country is supporting the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine and defending those people against some type of threat. These "comment mills" play into that strategy.
Last year, The Atlantic wrote about how the Russian government apparently pays people to "sit in a room, surf the Internet, and leave sometimes hundreds of postings a day that criticize the country's opposition and promote Kremlin-backed policymakers."
This practice isn't new, according to The Atlantic. But it can stifle open discussion about political issues in Russia, giving a louder voice to those who support the Kremlin.
http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-paying-people-to-post-pro-russia-propaganda-in-comments-2014-5
Meanwhile, a grim reality re women wanting to be rangers continues:
10 female soldiers graduate infantry officer course, will attend Ranger School
Stars and Stripes ^ | 10/28/16 | Dickstein
Posted on 10/28/2016, 6:05:40 AM by pabianice
WASHINGTON — Ten women who were commissioned Army officers in the spring graduated from the initial infantry training course Wednesday, becoming the Army’s first female infantry lieutenants.
The women were among 166 soldiers to complete the Infantry Officer Basic Leadership Course at Fort Benning in Georgia, a 17-week class that provides new officers the basic skills to lead a rifle platoon into combat, said Army Lt. Col. Matthew W. Weber, the commander of the unit that oversees the course. Officers are commissioned through ROTC, Officer Candidate School or the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
The infantry officer course is a “critical step” toward leading a rifle platoon, but the soldiers who graduated the Army’s first gender-integrated infantry class Wednesday will not join a combat unit for nearly a year, Weber said. They will attend additional courses to prepare them to serve in the traditionally all-male infantry. Those classes include the famously grueling Ranger School, Airborne School, Stryker Leaders Course and Mechanized Leaders Course, Weber said.
Eventually they’ll become platoon leaders at Fort Hood in Texas or Fort Bragg in North Carolina.
“This, the training of an infantry lieutenant, is a process until they step into a rifle platoon,” Weber said. “This is but the very first step in the process.”
The Army did not identify the graduates by name, and the graduation ceremony was not open to reporters.
The class began with 12 female officers. It was not clear Thursday whether the two who did not graduate would be given the opportunity to try again.An Army official said he could not comment on individual students.
In December, Defense Secretary Ash Carter ordered all military jobs, including those in special operations, open to women, clearing the way for female servicemembers to serve in front-line combat roles. related articles
article continues below
Interest among women to serve in those positions – primarily in the infantry and armor fields – has been limited, Army officials have said, but Lt. Gen. James C. McConville, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for personnel, said he expects interest to rise as more women enter those jobs.
The female officers who graduated Wednesday join one other woman as Army infantry officers.
In April, the Army approved Capt. Kristen Griest to transfer from military police into the infantry branch. Griest and Army Capt. Shaye Haver became the first female soldiers to graduate Ranger School in August 2015. One other female soldier, Army Maj. Lisa Jaster, has completed Ranger School. To date, 29 women have attempted the course.
Griest remains in infantry training, and she will join the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg in November. Haver also has been approved to transfer from aviation into the infantry, but she is awaiting official orders to attend training, said Brig. Gen. Peter Jones, the commandant of the Army’s infantry school at Fort Benning.
Jones said the new female lieutenants – just like the women who graduated Ranger School – faced the exact challenges as their male classmates. The standards were the same as those faced by the men who served before them.
“They are going to be standing in front of their formation, and they are going to be judged based on their leadership skills, not on whether they are male or female,” he said.
The Army will likely soon have more female lieutenants serving in combat arms jobs. There are 10 recently commissioned officers attending Armor Officer Basic Leadership Course, which is also at Fort Benning. Their class will graduate later this fall.
Including women in front-line combat positions will strengthen the Army because it provides a much larger talent pool to draw from, said Maj. Gen. Eric J. Wesley, the commander of the Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning.
“This whole issue has driven us to ensure that we have the right standards aligned to each occupational specialty in the Army,” Wesley said. “We have created a gender-neutral, standards-based training environment, where it no longer becomes a question of male or female. … It makes us better.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3485909/posts
