Monday, March 6, 2017

Russia today: Today's news for March 6th

President Trump started a media firestorm over the weekend with the following series of tweets:




The mainstream media and the Democrats are having a field day with this:

The Hill:
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Sunday raised questions about President Trump's claims that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower before the election.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet The Press," Schumer said Obama has "flatly denied that he has done this."

"And either way, Chuck, the president's in trouble. If he falsely spread this kind of misinformation, that is so wrong," Schumer said.

"It's beneath the dignity of the presidency. It is something that really hurts people's view of government."

Schumer said if this is the case, it shows the president doesn't know how to "conduct himself."

"On the other hand, if it's true, it's even worse for the president," Schumer said.

"Because that means that a federal judge, independently elected, has found probable cause that the president, or people on his staff, have probable cause to have broken the law or to have interacted with a foreign agent."
Sorry Chuck, but we don't elect federal judges. Also, if the wiretapping was approved by a FISA court, we would never even know about it since that information is classified. It would be beyond the reach of Constitutional rights, namely the 4th Amendment.

Of course, the RINOs were in line with Schumer:

Huffington Post:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Saturday that if former President Barack Obama actually wiretapped Donald Trump’s phones, either legally or illegally, it would be the biggest scandal since Watergate.

Speaking at a town hall in Clemson, South Carolina, Graham addressed Trump’s baseless claims that Obama eavesdropped on him prior to the 2016 election. Trump claimed Obama’s actions were as scandalous as “Nixon/Watergate” in one of several tweets on Saturday morning.

“I don’t know if it’s true or not, but if it is true, illegally, it would be the biggest political scandal since Watergate,” Graham said, referring to a scenario in which the Obama administration tapped Trump’s phones without a warrant. The crowd, which was evidently packed with anti-Trump residents, booed at this suggestion.

But then Graham, who is often willing to publicly criticize Trump, suggested that it would equally shocking if the eavesdropping had been done legally.

“The other side of the story ― just be quiet for a second ― if the former president of the United States was able to obtain a warrant lawfully to monitor Trump’s campaign for violating a law, that would be the biggest scandal since Watergate,” he said.

Graham made clear that the latter form of wiretapping would be aimed at investigating “Trump campaign activity with foreign governments.”
On the one hand, he claims it could be another Watergate, and then he also claims that Trump must be guilty if the government approved a wiretap on him. As we all know, the government never investigates anyone if they aren't already guilty.

Does Graham even hear himself? How can anyone reference Watergate, and then go on to assume the person is guilty if they are under investigation by the feds?

Regardless, the FBI did seek to wiretap members of the Trump campaign. According to a Guardian news report in January:
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.
Fortunately, we have NATO coming to our defense:

Independent:
Nato’s most senior British officer has claimed that alleged Russian cyber attacks could be deemed an act of aggression and trigger the military alliance’s principle of collective defence.

General Sir Adrian Bradshaw, the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said allegations of interference in American and European elections and an international disinformation campaign could cause the definition of an “attack” to be widened.

Nato’s founding treaty states that “an armed attack against on or more [members] shall be considered an attack against them” and allow allies to take any action deemed necessary in self defence.

General Bradshaw said the article, number five, would come into effect “when it’s declared to be”.

“It is a political decision, but it is not out of the question that aggression, blatant aggression, in a domain other than conventional warfare might be deemed to be Article Five,” he told 
Sorry General, but you get the bear:


On the bright side, NATO isn't ready to go to war:

Spiegel Online:
It was really nothing more than a test. Sigmar Gabriel was standing at the lectern inside the Bayerischer Hof hotel in Munich for his first appearance at the Munich Security Conference in his new role as German foreign minister. And he looked terrible. He was sick and had cancelled many of his appointments, but nevertheless decided not to forego his speech and the Security Conference. He wanted to toss a fly into the NATO soup.

That morning, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence had spoken from the same stage and had used the spotlight to urge NATO member states to fulfil their alliance obligations as agreed and spend the equivalent of at least 2 percent of their GDPs on defense. Germany was one of his primary targets. The country is the clear economic leader in Europe, but Berlin only spends 1.2 percent of its GDP on the military, less even in absolute terms than the United Kingdom, France and a host of other European countries.

Gabriel was well aware of all that, but he said: "We have to be a bit careful here that we don't over-interpret the 2 percent target." He then became much clearer: "Maintain perspective, stay focused on the target, but avoid being consumed by the bliss of a new rearmament spiral!" That was the decisive phrase: Rearmament spiral.
Trump is 100% correct on this. America spends far too much time and money on Europe's defense. It is well past time for the European welfare queens to start defending themselves. The following chart says it all:

(hat tip to Fullfact.org)

There are allies, and then there are leeches. Currently, Europe is one big leech on America.

Unfortunately, even when Trump gets it right, he quickly turns around and gets it wrong:

Navy Times:
President Donald Trump told sailors and shipboard workers aboard the yet-to-be commissioned aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford that he would rebuild the U.S. Navy and give the service all the resources it needs to fight and win — to include more aircraft carriers.

“I just spoke with Navy and industry leaders and have discussed my plan to undertake a major expansion of our entire Navy fleet, including having the 12-carrier Navy we need,” Trump said Thursday to cheers from sailors and shipyard workers in attendance.

Currently, the Navy has 10 aircraft carriers. 
Why do we need 12?

If anything, the Gerald R. Ford should be a lesson to us:
The Ford is the first in a new class of super-carriers that will eventually replace the Nimitz-class carriers that dominate the fleet today.

Though construction began four years earlier, she was formally laid down on Nov. 13, 2009, and christened November 2013. Originally, she was to join the fleet in 2014, but now that's slated to happen this year.

As happens with many lead ships in their class, the carrier has been plagued with numerous delays. Getting all the electric flight deck launch-and-recovery systems working — the first of their kind in the world — has proven to be a challenge.

Most recently, last year, Ford's electricity-generating main turbines were found to have mechanical problems, resulting in another delivery delay.

The carrier is now slated to join the fleet this summer with a total price tag of $17.5 billion — $12.9 billion of actual construction costs and $4.6 billion in research and development.
Even if we only build an exact replica of the Ford, that is another $26 billion. And why do we need to spend it? Who knows.

In other military news...

ABC 7 Chicago News:
A group of soldiers, family, and community members came together Saturday to fight a deportation order for a former U.S. soldier.

Army Private 1st class Miguel Perez, Jr., was born in Mexico and grew up in Chicago. On Monday, Perez faces a deportation hearing because he committed a non-violent drug offense, his family said.

Perez represents thousands of green card veterans who face deportation, according to a press release by Ashley's Memory Project, which was started by the immigrant mother of a deceased veteran, and a local church. They said many enlist with the promise of citizenship.

He served two tours of duty in Afghanistan and was injured in an explosion. He sustained a brain injury and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, his family said.
This is wrong on so many levels.

We can start with a man who risked his life fighting in our military is about to be deported? That is insane. It is blind bureaucratic ingratitude.

Secondly, non-violent drug offenses should NEVER be a crime. This guy needs treatment, and deserves it as a former American soldier.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)