Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Russia’

Pentagon Warns Russia After Their Threat to Shoot Down U.S. Jets


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/mattis-pentagon-responds/2/

Advertisement – story continues below

Over the weekend, the situation in Syria between the United States, the Russians and the Syrians took a very serious turn after an American fighter jet shot a Syrian aircraft out of the sky. The United States has defended its actions by stating that the Syrian plane was warned, but continued to bomb the Syrian Defense Force — a Syrian rebel group backed by the United States.

Russia in particular was outraged over this action, and issued a statement on Monday morning stating that they would “track” any United States planes that flew west of the Euphrates River. On Monday afternoon, the United States responded, The Washington Examiner reported.

“We are aware of the Russian statements,” Pentagon spokesman Navy Capt. Jeff Davis said in a statement. “We do not seek conflict with any party in Syria other than ISIS, but we will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our partners if threatened.”

That’s a pretty strong response, and it was definitely called for. While Russia’s statement did not specifically use the words “shoot down,” it clearly described aircraft flying in some areas as “targets” for destruction.

“From now on, in areas where Russian aviation performs combat missions in the skies of Syria, any airborne objects found west of the Euphrates River, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles belonging to the international coalition, tracked by means of Russian land and air anti-aircraft defense, will be considered air targets,” read the Russian Defense Ministry statement, according to CNN.

Advertisement – story continues below

Russia was essentially trying to dictate where America can and cannot fly in the Middle East — and Defense Secretary James Mattis’ Pentagon wasn’t going to let that happen.

CNN noted that Australia decided to take a slightly different approach. Rather than stand up to the Russian thugs, Australia suspended all air operations over Syria as a “precautionary measure.” Way to stand up for your right to fight terrorists, Australia. As soon as the anti-islamic State coalition hits a little snag, Australia bails on it. Sad.

The situation between Russia and the United States in Syria isn’t likely to go away anytime soon. The Russians have drawn their red line in the sand, and we have drawn ours.

President Donald Trump isn’t one to back down from a fight — especially when another country is trying to limit our ability to conduct airstrikes against terror groups in Syria.

The Hill noted that as the Islamic State terror group loses territory in Syria, tensions between Russia and the United States are likely to rise as each will want to grab onto the territory that was once held by the terror group. The United States will support the moderate rebels who have helped us defeat the terrorists, and the Russians and their Syrian counterparts will want to exterminate all the rebels and take over all the territory.

Obviously we would hope that tensions between the United States and Russia don’t boil over into actual violence, but the United States cannot allow Russia to dictate foreign policy in the Middle East (or anywhere else.).

President Barack Obama wasn’t the best at projecting American strength (actually he was the worst), so the Russians probably have the wrong impression about how far they can push us. If push comes to shove, Trump won’t hesitate to strike back against the Russians. While we would all love for there to be peace in this world, we aren’t going to sacrifice our sovereignty just to appease a bunch of former communist thugs.

H/T Hannity

Putin Goes to Brink of WW3 With New “Red Line” Against US


URL of the original posting site: http://conservativetribune.com/putin-brink-red-line-against-us/

Advertisement – story continues below

In the wake of the United States shooting down a Syrian regime fighter jet, the Kremlin seemed to be teetering on the brink of war, drawing a red line against America.

ABC News reported that the Russian Defense Ministry warned Monday that it would now treat U.S.-led coalition jets flying west of the Euphrates River in Syria as targets after a U.S. Navy fighter jet shot down a Syrian fighter jet that had dropped bombs on Syrian rebel forces Sunday. “(I)t it stopped short of saying it would shoot any down,” Reuters reported.

According to Sputnik News, the ministry warned that Russian missile defense “would intercept any aircraft in the area of operations of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria.”

“In areas where Russian aviation is conducting combat missions in the Syrian skies, any flying objects, including jets and unmanned aerial vehicles of the international coalition discovered west of the Euphrates River will be followed by Russian air and ground defenses as air targets,” the ministry announced.

Additionally, Russia claimed the U.S. did not use the de-confliction hotline to warn them before the downing of the jet. In the statement, the ministry said it would no longer participate in the de-confliction hotline.

Reuters reported that U.S. military officials confirmed that a US F/A-18E Super Hornet fighter jet had shot down a Syrian SU-22 aircraft after the Syrian jet reportedly dropped bombs near fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces, which is backed by the U.S. The SDF is an alliance of Kurdish and Arab soldiers fighting Islamic State group terrorists in Raqqa.

Advertisement – story continues below

Russia is backing the Syrian government in its civil war against rebel forces, and it criticized the U.S. Navy fighter jet’s action as a violation of Syria’s sovereignty.

This is the first incident between U.S. warplanes and Syria’s air force since the country’s civil war began six years ago.

If Putin decides to follow through on these threats, he may learn the hard way that the Trump administration’s red lines are less flexible than those of former President Barack Obama.

H/T Breitbart

Why There Won’t Be Any Evidence Of Russian ‘Collusion,’ Explained In Just Two Paragraphs


Reported by Ryan Pickrell | China/Asia Pacific Reporter | 12:47 PM 05/19/2017

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/19/why-there-wont-be-any-evidence-of-russian-collusion-explained-in-just-two-paragraphs/

The narrative that President Donald Trump has questionable ties to Russia persists, even though evidence of collusion has yet to come to light and probably won’t.

Conservative blogger Jim Geraghty, a contributor for National Review and noted #nevertrumperexplained the complete lack of evidence in just two very straightforward paragraphs.

Are any Democratic lawmakers starting to fear that they’re not going to find that evidence? The intelligence community is presumably always watching the Russian government as closely as they can. The FBI counterintelligence guys presumably track Russian agents on our soil as much as possible. You figure the NSA can track just about any electronic communication between Russians and figures in the Trump campaign. If there was something sinister and illegal going on between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, the U.S. government as a whole had every incentive in the world to expose that as quickly as possible.

They didn’t expose it before Election Day, they didn’t expose it before the Electoral College voted, they didn’t expose it before Inauguration Day … How many months have the best investigators in the United States been digging into this?

The establishment media has repeatedly highlighted the president’s inexperience and incompetence, yet he has somehow been able to hide deep political orchestrations with Russia, a clear U.S. rival, from America’s most advanced surveillance apparatus on the planet.

Reuters reported Thursday that members of the Trump campaign had 18 undisclosed exchanges with Russian officials, and while it is troubling that those interactions were not disclosed, Reuters introduced that there is “no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia.”

The report followed the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a Department of Justice special counsel to oversee the investigation into any possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.

Read the rest of Geraghty’s article, “When Does All That Evidence of Collusion Arrive?”

Follow Ryan on Twitter

Send tips to ryan@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Even Maxine Waters Says There’s No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion [VIDEO]


Reported by Photo of Chuck Ross Chuck Ross | Reporter | 6:18 PM 05/18/2017

URL of the original posting site: http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/18/even-maxine-waters-says-theres-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion-video/

One of President Trump’s harshest congressional critics acknowledged on Thursday that she has yet to see evidence of collusion between Trumpworld and the Russian government. In an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” California Rep. Maxine Waters went through her usual schtick of calling for Trump’s impeachment. She made vague allegations of cooperation between the Trump campaign and Kremlin “in developing a strategy about how they could ensure that Hillary Clinton was not elected.”

“I am talking about strategies that were developed, working with the Trump campaign. I really do believe that much of what you saw coming out of Trump’s mouth was a play from Putin’s playbook,” Waters said.

But after a two-minute diatribe, the Democrat was forced to acknowledge that she has yet to actually see evidence of collusion.

“But just to be clear, there has been no actual evidence yet?” Huffington Post editor Sam Stein asked Waters.

“No, it has not been,” Waters responded. “No it has not. And I want you to know every time I’ve talked about impeachment I’ve said we’ve got to connect the dots, we’ve got to get the facts, we’ve got to do the investigation. That is what leads to impeachment, and I’ve also said that Trump will lead us right there.”

The White House cited Waters’ remarks in a press release to reporters on Thursday afternoon, after Trump denied at a press conference that he colluded with Russians to influence the outcome of the election.

“There was no collusion, and everybody — even my enemies have said, there is no collusion,” Trump said.

WATCH:

Follow Chuck on Twitter

Putin DESTROYS Liberals’ Dream of Trump Impeachment With Answers on Russia ‘Secrets’


Posted by GirlsJustWannaHaveGuns.com on May 17, 2017

Seems like every liberal and their dog are calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump. Maxine Waters is ahead of the game by tweeting this every day at least 3 times.

Rep. Al Green went on the House floor and even made it official.

 

Much to the liberal’s dismay, the very man who is at the center of this controversy has popped their impeachment bubble…and he probably enjoyed doing it too.

The Hill reports this morning that “Russian leader Vladimir Putin said early Wednesday that President Trump did not share secrets with Russian officials last week and is willing to give Congress transcripts to prove it.  

The Associated Press and Reuters reported that Putin is willing to hand over the records of the president’s conversation with Russia’s foreign minister and ambassador, if the White House approves. Two days ago,  The Washington Post reported that the president reveled highly classified intelligence information during that Oval Office meeting.

The Post cited current and former US officials who said Trump divulged information from a foreign source, now known to be Israel, involving a terror threat from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Putin on Wednesday joked that his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “hasn’t shared those secrets with us.”

“I’ll be forced to issue him with a reprimand because he did not share these secrets with us,” Putin joked. “Not with me, nor with representatives of Russia’s intelligence services. It was very bad of him.”

Of course this is coming from the Washington Post, so good luck trusting everything that is being said by them. Especially since last week the WaPo called for the censoring of free speech that it doesn’t like.

To further add insult to injury to ALL of Washington and US press core Putin added:

“During a joint press conference with visiting prime minister of Italy, Putin also accused U.S. lawmakers of “stupid” and “dangerous” “anti-Russian sentiment” with accusations of sharing intelligence, the AP reported.

Putin said he had “no other explanation” for the allegations other than “political schizophrenia.”

“Either they don’t understand the damage they’re doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt,” he added. 

The Russian leader also suggested that Trump was being hindered from doing his job properly. He said the American people will be able to judge Trump’s performance as president “only when he’s allowed to work at full capacity.”

BOOM and BOOM!

Politicians and reporters, do your REAL job. Stop trying to impeach a president that you have no legal basis against. The investigation is still going on and has never stopped. Comey deserved to get fired. Move on! Didn’t liberals create a whole website about that?

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: Every Time I Try To Be Mad At Trump, The Media Pull Me Back


Commentary by  Ann Coulter  

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2017/05/17/every-time-i-try-to-be-mad-at-trump-the-media-pull-me-back/

Every time I try to be mad at Trump, the media reel me back in by launching some ridiculous, unprovoked attack. This time, it’s the fake news story about Trump “leaking” classified information to the Russkies.

The president can’t “leak” classified information: It’s his to declassify.

The big secret Trump allegedly revealed is that Muslims might try to blow up a plane with laptops. I already knew that. I read it in The New York Times.

The New York Times, March 22, 2017:

Devices Banned on Some Planes Over ISIS Fears

“Intelligence showing that the Islamic State is developing a bomb hidden in portable electronics spurred the United States and Britain on Tuesday to bar passengers from airports in a total of 10 Muslim-majority countries from carrying laptop computers … two senior American counterterrorism officials said. …”

This totally secret, Deep Throat-level information has been widely published in thousands of news outlets throughout the civilized world. There was yet another round of stories last week with the update that the U.S. is considering a laptop ban on flights from Europe as well.

Hey, you know what might make more sense than banning laptops? How about banning Muslims?

Bear with me here, I’m still working out the details, but I’m almost certain a federal judge in Hawaii can’t block a president’s temporary ban on Muslim immigration just because he’s testy with Trump over some campaign statements.

As Northwestern law professor Eugene Kontorovich explained in The Washington Post, courts have never examined a politician’s campaign statements for improper motive, because

1) campaigns are not part of the deliberative process; and

2) to start doing so would open the door to “examinations of the entire lives of political officials whose motives may be relevant to legal questions.”

Nonetheless, Kontorovich says, that is the legal argument being advanced against Trump’s travel ban: “Trump is a bigot, and thus his winning presidential campaign in fact impeaches him from exercising key constitutional and statutory powers, such as administering the immigration laws.”

To preserve their judicial coup, this Monday, the 9th Circuit sent out the geriatric ward to hear an appeal of the Hawaii judge’s absurd ruling. At their ages, there’s a good chance the judges will be dead by the time the Supreme Court overturns them.

Arguing against Trump’s exercise of his constitutional and statutory powers was first-generation American, Neal Katyal. (There are plenty of 10th-generation America-haters. You couldn’t get one of them to argue that we should end our country through mass immigration?)

At oral argument before the three wheezing gargoyles, Katyal announced that, before enforcing federal immigration laws passed by generations of Democrats and Republicans working together in Congress, the president of the United States is required to profess: “Islam is peace.”

There’s a new legal principle!

Asked by one of the crypt-keepers if Trump is the only president who would be prohibited from issuing this precise travel ban because of his statements about Muslims, the smarmy, preening, pretentious Katyal answered: “I think the most important point is, if you don’t say all these things, you never wind up with an executive order like this.”

As lawyers say: Nonresponsive!

But as long as we’re operating under these new rules for determining a U.S. president’s rights and responsibilities, how about looking at everything Trump has said about Muslims?

For example, may the courts consider this quote from September 2015?

Trump: “I love the Muslims. I think they are great people. … Would I consider putting a Muslim-American in my Cabinet? Oh, absolutely. No problem with that.”

Lawyers like Katyal aren’t telling the courts what Trump said; they’re telling courts their own crazy interpretations of what Trump said. No liberal is capable of accurately reporting Trump’s position because the left never understood his position in the first place. As Peter Thiel said, the media take Trump literally, but not seriously, while the people take him seriously, but not literally.

After the San Bernardino terrorist attacks in December 2015, Trump made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that we curtail our breakneck importation of Muslims, some of whom periodically erupt in murderous violence. The media concluded: TRUMP HATES MUSLIMS! Nothing Trump or anyone else said could persuade them otherwise.

Here’s what Trump actually said:

“What’s happened is, we’re out of control. We have no idea who’s coming into our country. We have no idea if they love us or if they hate us. … I have friends that are Muslims. They are great people. But they know we have a problem. They know we have a real problem. ‘Cause something is going on. And we can’t put up with it, folks. …

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on. … Where the hatred comes from and why — we’ll have to determine, we’re going to have to figure it out. We have to figure it out. We can’t live like this. It’s going to get worse and worse. You’re going to have more World Trade Centers. …”

Throughout the campaign, Trump supporters tried in vain to explain the so-called “Muslim ban” to a hostile media dead set on interpreting everything out of Trump’s mouth in the ugliest possible way. For example, our general policy on Muslim immigration would be “No, thanks!” but there would be exceptions. So Charles Krauthammer can stop worrying about King Abdullah of Jordan.

In March, Trump supporter Andy Dean told a dense CNN anchor:

“He’s talking about the culture of Islam in the Middle East. … We love Muslims in America and they love us. Why? We have a great culture that respects women’s rights. … The thing about Muslims in the Middle East is they don’t respect women’s rights. If a woman wants to get a divorce in the Middle East, that woman could be killed. If you want to leave the religion of Islam in the Middle East, you can be killed. It’s very real.”

To the same blockhead anchor, Trump supporter Kayleigh McEnany had to fill in an edited quote the network had just shown of Trump:

“It’s important to know what happened 15 seconds later. Anderson Cooper said to him, ‘Are you speaking of radical Islam or are you speaking of Islam?’ He said radical; sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference, though. So he did say radical Islam. He said it repeatedly during his campaign. He said, ‘I have Muslim friends. I love the Muslim people.’ …”

One of Trump’s vast number of African-American supporters told HLN’s Drew Pinksy:

“I love what (Trump) is doing with the Muslims getting out of the country, because if they really knew what that was about — if they knew that that was about freedom. It was about freedom versus enslavement.”

He’s right. It’s not about religion. It’s not about nationality. It’s about hitting the pause button on bringing in radical Islam’s dysfunctional, misogynist, violent, exploding-airplane culture.

The voters understood Trump. (At least some of us did — barely enough of us to elect him president!) Liberals didn’t. But now the courts are blocking Trump’s exercise of presidential powers based on the left’s own idiotic misinterpretations of what he said.

TOWNHALL.COM’s Polilitially INCORRECT Cartoons for Today


Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: