Archive for the ‘AMERICA AND RUSSIA’ Category

Claim: Russia Has Created A Devastating Zircon Hypersonic Missile That Will Rip Right Through U.S. Warships: “Unstoppable… Unbeatable… Undefendable”

As President Trump ratchets up the U.S. military in his latest budget proposal, his counterpart, Russian President Vladimir Putin, has reportedly created a hypersonic missile with such devastating implications for the U.S. Navy, that it is being called “unstoppable.”

Russia claims to have created a devastating hypersonic missile that travels five times faster than the speed of sound and could rip through navy warship defences because it’s too fast to stop.

The Kremlin’s Zircon missile has been called “unstoppable”, “unbeatable” and “undefendable” with a 4,600mph speed that only one defence system in the world can destroy – that system is owned by Russia.

The missile employs to reach its hypersonic speeds whereby propulsion is created by forcing air from the atmosphere into its combustor where it mixes with on-board fuel – rather than carry both fuel and oxidizer like traditional rockets. This makes it lighter, and therefore much faster.

The US Navy warns it could be fitted to Russia’s nuclear-powered Kirkov warship, where it would have a range of up to 500 miles.

In comparison, the Royal Navy’s Sea Ceptor missile, which is designed to destroy incoming missiles can only travel 15 miles and hit top speeds of 2,300mph.

Reports indicate that no counter measures for the Zircon missile exist. If true, then the majority of the U.S. Naval fleet has just been rendered obsolete.


Before the House Intelligence Committee on Monday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed what everyone already suspected – that federal investigators were actively looking into the Russian hacks of 2016 and whether or not anyone in the Trump campaign worked with the Russians to help them succeed in their efforts. This was the first time the Trump aspect of the investigation was acknowledged publicly by Comey, but leaks had already revealed many details of the FBI’s case, including some of the figures at the center of suspicion – Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, and Michael Flynn among them.

“As you know,” Comey said, “our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations. But, in unusual circumstances, where it is in the public interest, it may be appropriate to do so, as Justice Department policy recommends. This is one of those circumstances.

“I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI and part of our Counter-Intelligence Commission is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” he continued, “and that includes investigating the nature of any links between the individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts.”

First of all, Comey said he got special permission from the Justice Department to break with FBI protocol and confirm this investigation. Meaning what? Meaning, he got authorization from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, right? Sessions, who was a self-proclaimed surrogate for Trump during the campaign. Sessions, who has also been under scrutiny for talking to Russian officials. Sessions, who the Democrats claimed could never be impartial when it came to the president. That’s the guy who told Comey, “Yeah, go ahead and tell them what they want to hear, it’s fine.” You could basically then go as far as to say that the Trump administration put their stamp of approval on Comey’s testimony.

Doesn’t really seem like what you’d expect from a White House with something to hide, especially if that “something” essentially amounts to treason.

What else? Comey said in the hearing that the FBI had no evidence to suggest that the Russians hacked the voting system. He said they had no evidence one way or the other to suggest that the DNC hacks influenced a single American’s vote in the election. So right there, he basically undermined the entire Democrat argument, which is that Trump is an illegitimate president. Nothing doing. The election was fair and free, and the result was the result.

But here’s the important thing. Here’s where all of this really falls apart if you have an IQ in the mid double-digits. Here’s what the Democrats are asking us to believe: That U.S. intelligence has had evidence, dating back to at least December and perhaps as far back as July, that Donald Trump and his associates secretly colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the election. And to believe that, we have to believe that:

A: Donald Trump is so stupid that he thought he could get away with the single biggest act of treason in American history.

B: The FBI calmly allowed a known traitor to assume the office of the U.S. presidency.

C: The FBI continues to allow a known traitor to occupy said office.

You HAVE to swallow all three of these ideas to believe that this is the bombshell that Democrats and the mainstream media are saying it is.

Do you? Can you?

We’ll believe it when they march Trump out of the White House in handcuffs. And should that fateful day ever arrive, we’re going to have some serious questions, starting with: Why did it take this long?

Somehow, we have a feeling we’ll never have to ask those questions.


The fear of identifying Islam as the “religious right.”


Vladimir Putin and Russia rigged the 2016 election and swept Donald Trump into the White House. As it continues to push that narrative, the old-line establishment media (OLEM) has revived a familiar villain.

The “old guard religious right” once determined to stop Trump, explains Michelle Goldberg in the New York Times, but once he gained the nomination, “religious conservatives realized that their only path to federal influence lay in a bargain with this profane, thrice-married Manhattan sybarite. So they got in line, ultimately proving to be Mr. Trump’s most loyal backers.”

For his part, “President Trump may lack a coherent ideology, but he shares with the religious right a kind of Christian identity politics, a sense that the symbols of Christianity, if not its virtues, deserve cultural precedence.” The church-state separation stands in peril, and as Goldberg explains, “the religious right has been elevated to power without having to contest its ideas in an election. Sometimes, a deal with the devil pays off, big league.”

And so on, but Goldberg does provide some illumination. “Right wing,” and “far right” are the default descriptions for anything the OLEM fail to understand. That includes the role of religion in public life.

For much of the past century, many religious conservatives believed they were living in the end times, and that politics is dirty business. So they chose to stay on the sidelines but during the disastrous Carter Era (1976-1980) they realized that was a bad idea. So they took their place at the table, backing Ronald Reagan, and the OLEM ran to the barricades with a bullhorn. The “religious right” had breached the separation of church and state, the nation stood at the brink of theocracy, and of course it was all reminiscent of National Socialist Germany, which was also “far-right.”

As Richard John Neuhaus put it in The Naked Public Square, without religious values there would have been no anti-slavery movement, no women’s suffrage movement, no civil-rights movement, and no anti-war movement. Both Neuhaus and his anti-war colleague Dr. Martin Luther King were in fact Christian ministers.

Neuhaus defended the “country cousins’” participation in public life. They may be the most harmless and law-abiding segment of the population but for the OLEM they were always a “religious right” menace.

When left and right emerged as political terms around the time of the French Revolution, the “right wing” consisted of monarchists, aristocrats, and devotees of an authoritarian state church. One would be hard pressed to find support for any of that in contemporary America.

Activism for a human being’s right to life, for parental choice in education, and for the right to participate in public life on an equal footing, is entirely compatible with constitutional democracy as it actually exists. Islam, on the other hand, is more representative of what “right wing” has meant historically.

Dynastic monarchies, kings, crown princes and such are typical of Islamic nations. Thriving political democracies are virtually unknown in Islamic lands, which do not separate religion and the state. Indeed, in Islam they are the same thing, and Islamic law prevails above all else.

Islam does not offer equal rights to women and in some Islamic countries women cannot even drive and may only appear in public trussed up in a burka. In Islam women are essentially men’s property and men have the right, as the Koran explains, to “banish them to beds apart and scourge them.”

Islam accords no rights to homosexuals and the Islamic State prefers to toss accused gays from the rooftops. Islam is also a supremacist ideology, reflected in Nidal Hasan’s cry of “Allahu Akbar,” when he gunned down 13 unarmed Americans at Ford Hood in 2009 including private Francheska Velez, 21, pregnant and preparing to go home. For this Muslim, like Syed Farook, Tashfeen Malik and many others, the duty of jihad trumps American laws against homicide.

If the group in question is the Nation of Islam things are more complicated. According to the NOI, revered by the President Formerly Known as Barry Soetoro and DNC contender Rep. Keith Ellison, people such as Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Joan of Arc and Eleanor Roosevelt are the result of an experiment by a mad scientist named Yacub. This all went down on the Isle of Patmos 6,000 years ago, but the spaceship is coming.

Supremacist, sexist, and militant, Islam is everything progressives profess to oppose. Yet the OLEM reserves the “right wing” put-down for Christian conservatives, who now rule the roost.

By supporting Donald Trump, as Michelle Goldberg explains, “the religious right has been elevated to power without having to contest its ideas in an election.” Yes, that’s what Vladimir Putin had in mind when he fooled the voters of 50 states and got Trump elected president.

Attack on Attny Gen Sessions Shows How Far Deep State and Obama Will Go to Destroy Trump

Thursday’s witch hunt against Trump’s U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions — once again over the media’s new favorite attack of pushing fake “Russia ties” — really shows just how far the media is willing to go to torpedo Donald Trump and to assist the weakling Democrat Party retake power in Washington D.C.
The morning’s witch hunt started with the Old Media establishment attacking Sessions for “lying” to Senator Al “Stuart Smalley” Franken about his meetings with Russian officials. After the media said Sessions “lied” to Franken about meeting Russian officials various and sundry Democrats then piled on alternately demanding that Sessions “recuse himself” from any investigations into the non-existent “hacking” of the election by the Russians and calling for him to “resign.” Then the media picked up on the Democrats empty bellicosity and started the cycle all over again.

Before we get to the other hypocrisies of the attack, we have to clear up this “lying to Franken” nonsense.

During his confirmation hearing for Attorney General, Minnesota Democrat Al Franken asked Senator Sessions if he spoke to the Russians about Donald Trump’s campaign.

Franken asked Sessions if he knew anything about “a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.” Sessions replied saying, “I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.”

Clearly Franken was asking if Sessions talked to the Russians during the election as a “surrogate” working for Donald Trump. Sessions did not and there is no evidence he did.

But since the confirmation, the left moved the goal posts claiming that Sessions “lied” about meeting Russian officials. Liberal news “reporters” began braying that in the last year or two Sessions did meet with Russian officials during his duty as a Senator and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, so that ipso facto means he “lied” to Senator Franken and perjured himself during the confirmation hearings.

This is a BS attack, though. Sessions wasn’t asked if he ever met with Russian officials at all. He was asked if he met with Russian officials “as a surrogate for Donald Trump.” Sessions never denied he met Russian officials when he was performing his duty as a Senator. Therefore, he never lied about anything.

Don’t take my word for it. The law profs at noted that there is no reading of the law that would force Sessions to resign over this purported “lie.”

Even reporter Philip Bump from the left-wing Washington Post says that he doesn’t see how Sessions could face any perjury charges for his comments during his confirmation hearings.

Bump went on to say “I’m starting to think that a lot of perceptions of the facts in the Russia-Trump question are colored by partisanship.” He also said he thought the Democrats were “overplaying their hand” on the whole issue.

Regardless, once this false accusation and misleading characterization of the matter hit the media, Democrats crawled out of their hovels to whiny for Sessions to “resign” for telling a “lie.”

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D, MO), for instance, jumped to twitter to criticize Sessions.
Nope, never met a Russian. Ah, but wait, first in 2013 then in 2015, we get the same Senator dutifully telling her constituents that she is off to meet… the Russians?
There is even a photo of McCaskill meeting a Russian official.
Looks like she fell right into the truth trap.

She lied to attack Sessions, yet her own actions were shown to be based on a lie.

Another Democrat Senator essentially outed McCaskill as a liar. West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin couldn’t understand how McCaskill could say they’ve never met with Russian officials. After all, he noted, “we all have.”

Manchin also insisted that nearly every Senator has met with Russian officials at one time or another because it’s their job as senators to do so. had some fun with the McCaskill’s lie, too. If meeting with a Russian is now a crime, the website said, then up to 30 Senators will have to quit.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) joined in the fun by proclaiming Sessions a “liar” who must resign.

For his part, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) also brayed for Sessions to resign. Schumer went even farther by demanding that an Obama-appointed perfunctory be assigned as a “special prosecutor” to “investigate Russian meddling in the election.”

This is amusing at best considering the fact that Barack Obama himself insisted that there was no hacking of the election by the Russians. Early in December, President Obama told the “Daily Show’s” Trevor Noah that he and his operatives saw “no evidence” of any Russian hacking during the 2016 elections.

Naturally, once Schumer called for Sessions to resign, the Obamabots on Twitter warmed up their fake accounts to blanket the social media platform with fake tweets pretending to be “normal people” calling for Sessions to go.

Trump gives his hard-line campaign promises a more moderate tone in address to Congress

President Trump promised to lower taxes, combat terrorism and replace the Affordable Care Act in a speech to a joint session of Congress, Feb. 28. Here are key moments from that speech. (Video: Sarah Parnass/Photo: Jonathan Newton/The Washington Post)
By Philip Rucker and Robert Costa February 28 at 11:29 PM
President Trump sought to repackage his hard-line campaign promises with a moderate sheen Tuesday night, declaring what he termed “a new chapter of American greatness” of economic renewal and military might in his first joint address to Congress.

Seeking to steady his presidency after a tumultuous first 40 days, Trump had an air of seriousness and revealed flashes of compassion as he broadly outlined a sweeping agenda to rebuild a country he described as ravaged by crime and drugs, deteriorating infrastructure and failing bureaucracies.

Trump’s 60-minute speech touched on his plans to overhaul the nation’s health-care system and tax code, but it was short on specifics and heavy on lofty prose. Struggling to steer a bitterly divided nation with his job-approval ratings at historic lows, Trump effectively pleaded with the American people to give him a chance and to imagine what could be achieved during his presidency.

“We are one people, with one destiny,” Trump said quietly near the end. “The time for small thinking is over. The time for trivial fights is behind us. We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts.”

Trump extended olive branches to his opponents. He called on Congress to pass paid family leave, a reference to a long-held Democratic Party priority that brought liberal lawmakers to their feet to applaud. And he pledged to work with Muslim allies to extinguish Islamic State terrorists, going so far as to acknowledge the killings of Muslims as well as Christians in the Middle East.

Still, Trump did not back away from his most controversial policies. He used typically bellicose language to describe the fight against the Islamic State, calling it “a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women and children of all faiths and all beliefs.” He made a point to utter the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism,” which Republicans cheered heartily.

[President Trump’s joint address to Congress, annotated]

The president forcefully defended his travel ban of refugees and citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries — an executive order that was halted in federal court — as necessary to prevent the entry of foreigners who do not share America’s values.

“We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America,” Trump said. “We cannot allow our nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.”

The president trumpeted his plans to budget a major increase in military spending. One of Trump’s fiercest Republican critics, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), stood enthusiastically when the president said he would end the “defense sequester” caps on Pentagon spending.
On foreign affairs, Trump said he would honor historic alliances — and explicitly stated his support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, on which he had wavered during his campaign — but said he would seek new ones as well, even with former adversaries. The latter seemed an indirect reference to potentially working to combat terrorism with Russia, which U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded meddled in the November election in hopes of helping Trump.

“America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where share interests align,” Trump said. “We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict.”

Five Paris Suburbs Set Ablaze While Rioters Chant “Allahu Akbar!

SEO Powered By SEOPressor