The Stafford Voice

Our little place to talk about and share about life.

Russia

What John Kerry said that shocked Glenn Beck

by

Secretary of State John Kerry said something pretty alarming and it left Glenn Beck shocked.

It’s no secret that Obama and many of his cronies want the Iran deal to be the law of the land. And now they are out trying to scare the American public into supporting it as well.

John Kerry said, “That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world – which is already bubbling out there.”

This statement should be alarming to many people.

For many years now, some of us have been giving warning to the workings of other countries wanting to move away from the US dollar. This is one of the reasons, if not the only reason, for the alliance of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China).

When you look at two of the names listed, you should start to wonder.

Russia and China. Plain and simple, they want nothing more than to move away from the dollar. And, they are seeing this as another way to make that happen.

The Obama administration is playing fool and supporting the push to a bad Iran deal.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass Obamacare to find out what’s in it? The same thing is happening with the Iran deal.

 

Don’t forget to listen to this week’s podcast! Check it out:

Stay alert and follow to know the moment the show is LIVE.

Gorbachev Says America Needs A Perestroika

by

In an interview with RT, Gorbachev said in reference to the US that ‘they need a Perestroika.’

Translated from Russian, Perestroika means ‘restructuring.’ During the end of the Cold War, Gorbachev was largely viewed as the leader of the perestroika in the then USSR.

Personally speaking, I never thought that I would ever agree too much with anything someone from Russia would say, but I have to hand it to Gorby on this one. The US is in need of a bit of restructuring, or perestroika if you will.

Within the realm of politics lies layer upon layer of corruption and failed policies. Year after year of a little here and a little there, and it all adds up to what we see in Washington today.

“They can call it any name they want, the American way,” he said, adding that “Americans do not want a war. But it is not easy for them, with the society that they have.”

The US uses tensions and instability to intervene into a conflict, then creates an enemy to enable their “policy of pressure” and shift responsibility, he said.

“Whenever tensions are high, whenever there’s instability in a certain country or throughout the region, it’s an opportunity for [the US] to intervene,” said Gorbachev.

During his interview with RT, Gorbachev explained that there were always two sides to the conflict in the 20th century – “one was supported by the United States, and the other by the Soviet Union.” Read more at RT.com

Russia to aid Syria over possible US strike

by

obama-putin-g20-580.jpeg

As he touched down in St. Petersburg on Thursday morning, President Obama greeted his host Vladimir Putin with a handshake and a smile.

But the cordial greeting belies the tinderbox the two leaders are sitting on, as they posture and deliberate over a potential U.S. strike on Syria — one of Russia’s closest Mideast allies.

Putin escalated concerns about the fallout from any strike when he indicated in an interview published Wednesday that his country could send Syria and its neighbors in the region the components of a missile shield if the U.S. attacks.

U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified this week that the Russians might even replace any military assets the U.S. destroys in a strike.

The warnings raise the possibility of a supposedly “limited” strike on Syria turning into a proxy tit-for-tat between Russia and the U.S.

Rep. George Holding, R-N.C., went further during a hearing on Syria on Wednesday, pressing military officials on what the U.S. would do “if Russia decided to strike at us in that theater.”

“We can certainly say that Russia would have options to strike us in that theater in retaliation for us striking their ally,” he warned.

Dempsey declined to engage in that discussion, saying only that “Russia has capabilities that range from the asymmetric, including cyber, all the way up through strategic nuclear weapons. And again, it wouldn’t be helpful in this setting to speculate about that.”

Read more at Fox News

Russia releases key findings on chemical attack in Syria

by

People injured in what the government said was a chemical weapons attack, breathe through oxygen masks as they are treated at a hospital in the Syrian city of Aleppo March 19, 2013 (Reuters / George Ourfalian)

Russia has released a 100-page report that they have handed over to the UN detailing key findings on the chemical attack in Syria.

Their experts indicated that the attack did carry the deadly nerve agent known as sarin and that it was most likely fired by the rebels.

So, what are the key points to their findings? Take a look:

• the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;

• RDX, which is also known as hexogen or cyclonite, was used as the bursting charge for the shell, and it is “not used in standard chemical munitions”;

• soil and shell samples contain “the non-industrially synthesized nerve agent sarin and diisopropylfluorophosphate,” which was “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.” via RT News

But where, if in fact the rebels did this, did they get their weapons? Was it from Saddam all those years ago when Bush said Iraq had WMD’s? There were reports that he sent them to Syria before anyone got there to look. Or, were they given by the Obama administration in their alleged weapon running scheme that unraveled during Benghazi?

Somewhere in Russia, Edward Snowden Is Smiling

by

A poster of Edward Snowden is shown. | AP Photo

President Obama couldn’t say it—he denied it repeatedly in fact—but Edward Snowden was very much the reason he felt compelled to stand before the national press on a sun-baked Friday August afternoon and attempt to explain why his administration would pursue reforms of its counterterrorism programs even though—and this is the tricky part—he wouldn’t concede that those programs are flawed in any way.

That brings us back to Snowden, the whistleblower/patriot/traitor squirreled away somewhere in Russia after revealing key operational details of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance programs. The drip-drip of disclosures was slowly eroding the public’s faith in the system, the president said Friday, and he needed to take steps to reassure the world that it wasn’t being abused. He worried aloud that Americans were increasingly viewing the government as an Orwellian “Big Brother.”

“It’s not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programs,” Obama said before reporters in the White House East Room. “The American people need to have confidence in them, as well.”

For the president, the day marked an attempt to wrest some control of a situation that increasingly threatens to disrupt the national security calculus. Late last month, an attempt by liberals and libertarian Republicans in the House to limit the NSA’s authority fell inches short. To that end, the president announced that he would work with Congress to rewrite a key section of the Patriot Act, push for more opposing views before the shadowy Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, move to declassify more national security documents, and appoint an outside panel to examine whether the surveillance programs strike the proper balance between security and civil liberties.

Obama, as well as senior administration officials, did their best to paint the new initiatives as a product of a review process the president commenced when he first assumed office, with Obama repeatedly noting Friday that he had criticized some NSA programs as a senator. But just about no one was buying that. And the president ultimately admitted that Snowden’s actions had forced the administration’s hand.

“The leaks triggered a much more rapid and passionate response than would have been the case if I had simply appointed this review board,” Obama said, while adding, “I actually think we would have gotten to the same place—and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security.”

Still, Obama wasn’t ready to revise his assessment of Snowden, who, he reminded the press, has been charged with multiple felonies. “I don’t think he was a patriot,” Obama said.

via NationalJournal.com

Clinton Says US and Russia Agree Gaddafi’s Days Numbered

by

VOA News

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, capping a day of wide-ranging U.S.-Russian policy talks in Washington, said the two powers agree that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s days in power are numbered. Clinton and her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov signed of series of agreements including one resolving a major dispute over child adoptions.

The United States and Russia have differed over Libya, with Moscow abstaining on the U.N. resolution authorizing military action in Libya, and criticizing the scale of NATO air strikes.

However, at a press event with Lavrov, Secretary Clinton welcomed Russian mediation with the Libyan parties, and said both agree that the crisis must end with Mr. Gadhafi leaving power.

“We are still getting contradictory signals from Colonel Gadhafi’s camp,” she said. “He has yet to meet the red lines that are set by the international community to cease violence against his people, withdraw his forces and step down from power. So although neither of us can predict to you the exact day or hour that Gadhafi will leave power, we do understand and agree that his days are numbered.”

Lavrov said a political process must start between the Tripoli government and Benghazi-based rebels as soon as possible, for a cease-fire and negotiated settlement and said there is no other way to solve the issue.

The Russian minister also defended his government’s refusal to back a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for its lethal crackdown on protestors.

“You are asking why Russia is blocking the resolution that would condemn Assad. You know, diplomacy does not exist to condemn and start putting on political scores,” he said. “Our goal is to solve problems. But just condemning people without any solution will not lead us to anything.”

Russia 2012: Putin and Medvedev to Square Off?

by

Over the past couple of months, maybe even over a year, things in Russia have certainly been interesting to try to follow. As in the United States, Russia will be facing presidential elections in 2012. But it seems that there may be a face-off with current President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin for the top spot.

WallStreetJournal | Head to Head in Moscow Power Play

As much as anything can be sure in the world of Russian politics, there is no likelihood of Mr. Medvedev running off in open competition against Mr. Putin in next year’s presidential elections. The men are political intimates and have been for a decade. There is a bond of trust between them that would be remarkable in any country’s leading politicians.Another thing that is not changing is Mr. Putin’s seniority in the partnership, at least not immediately, and not to any degree that makes a jot of difference to the safety of foreign investments in Russia.

There is, probably, also no change in the relative realities of power and office in Russia. Mr. Putin, for the past four years, has not needed to be in the Kremlin to exercise effective supreme power. Whether, after 2012, Mr. Putin is in the Kremlin and Mr. Medvedev is in the White House, or the other way around, is of limited importance. They will continue to exercise real power.

The only change that one can be truly sure of is a generational one, and this will be a very gradual one.

Russian political cycles have tended to be longer than those in western Europe. Its transition from centrally-planned, autarkic and dysfunctional empire to a more pluralistic, modern and dynamic element of a multi-polar world is lasting decades.

Even if it has been inevitably buffeted by external events and retarded by misjudgments and creeping venality, that process is Mr. Putin’s life mission.

Electing Putin in 2012

by

In Russia, there is no question who is leading things and that person is Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Having served as President from 2000 through 2008, he certainly knows a thing or two about how Russia operates. And, as elections are fast approaching for 2012, there is a buzz about him throwing his name in the hat. But, there is more to it for Russia than electing Putin.

As he looks to be the more popular choice, it certainly seems an easy win. But, if he were to become elected, things could change. One of those things could be what ex-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev has been talking about for nearly a year, a sliding back into Soviet authoritarian ways. Which could severely reverse the growth that Russia has taken advantage of over recent years. In other words, the electing of Putin in 2012 could lead to stagnation both economically and politically.

Political stagnation would be very harmful, as political parties have been calling for change. A change to policy that has been sought after for some time. And, with the possible electing of Putin, it could most definitely bring a Cold-War era type of change that would not be liked by the United States and its European allies.

But, that should come as no surprise with the recent START treaty as it heavily favors Russia and their nuclear weapons systems. Even so much on their side, that Russia announced that they would be seeking a more ‘modern’ military by increasing defense spending. Priced at $650B and a GDP impact that would triple it from 0.5% to 1.5%. This is cause enough to see the direction that Russia is headed.

So, you see, it is more than just the politics that are in play with the future election of Vladimir Putin, it is the global impact that it would play.

Don’t Start on START Until Next Year

by

by Ken Blackwell

Americans can tell when we are being lied to. We’re being lied to when Harry Reid tells us that the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia is a bit of unfinished business that the Senate must ratify because it’s “urgent.” Urgent? If that had been the case, why didn’t Mr. Reid bring the measure up last summer? Or last fall?

Continue reading . . .

Risking a New Cold War

by

by Patrick Buchanan

Before Republican senators vote down the strategic arms reduction treaty negotiated by the Obama administration, they should think long and hard about the consequences.

In substance, New START has none of the historic significance of Richard Nixon’s SALT I or ABM treaty, or Jimmy Carter’s SALT II, or Ronald Reagan’s INF treaty removing all intermediate-range missiles from Europe, or the strategic arms reductions treaties negotiated by George Bush I and Bush II.

The latter cut U.S. and Russian arsenals from 10,000-12,000 nuclear warheads targeted on each nation to 2,000 — a huge cut.

If Republicans could back those treaties, what is the case for rejecting New START? Barack Obama’s treaty reduces strategic warheads by 450, leaving each side 1,550.

Is this not enough to deter when we consider what the Chernobyl disaster did to the Soviet Union and what the knockdown of two buildings in New York has done to this country? Ten hydrogen bombs on the United States or Russia could set us back decades, let alone 1,000.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona is holding up the treaty until he gets more assurances that the administration will do the tests and upgrades necessary to maintain the reliability of U.S. nuclear weapons. He should receive those assurances.

Maintaining the credibility of the U.S. deterrent is a vital national interest. But does this justify holding the treaty hostage?

Continue reading . . .