BOMBSHELL: Watch Krauthammer Unload On Hillary As ‘Clinton Cash’ Scandal Goes Radioactive

As one considers the near-constant wave upon wave of disclosures and revelations about Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and the allegedly related oceans of cash that flowed into the Clinton Foundation coffers, one can’t help but wonder if Sen. Elizabeth Warren is already preparing her explanation as to why she’s entering the presidential race.

Yes, the Massachusetts Democrat has said time and again that she won’t run for president in 2016, but Hillary’s political ship is arguably taking on so much water that it could well be at risk of sinking, at least in the eyes of Democrat power brokers, donors and strategists whose nervousness about the mounting Clinton controversies could prompt them to change course…and candidates.

Among the latest shockwaves to batter the Clinton campaign is an explosive front-page article in The New York Times detailing how the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary was secretary of state, may have benefited from a huge deal to put a Russian company — and essentially the Putin government — in control of much of the world’s uranium supply.

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.”

The Times article reveals that not long after a majority stake in that massive mining enterprise, Uranium One, was set to he acquired by the Russians, “Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

In addition, as the Times’ exhaustive investigation indicates, the Clinton Foundation took in millions of dollars in connection with the uranium deal — money that reportedly was not properly disclosed.

“Uranium One’s 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.”

This may help explain why, as Reuters reports in an exclusive story, Hillary Clinton’s non-profit “charities” have decided to amend and refile at least five years worth of tax returns.

“The charities’ errors generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to Reuters.”

Plus, as Western Journalism reported, a former Clinton Foundation employee with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood — a man who represented the Foundation’s Climate Initiative in Egypt — has been sentenced to life in prison. His offense was said to have been supporting an Islamist protest against the military-led ousting of former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi.

Clearly, with The New York Times featuring a detailed exposé of disturbing Clinton high-dollar dealings and potential influence peddling, liberal media are not backing away from this growing scandal surrounding the woman who wants to be president. Ron Fournier, writing in National Journal, lays out a scorching assessment of the Clintons’ political operation as it seeks to downplay and dismiss a scandal such as the one that’s building around the soon-to-be-released book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

1. Deny: Salient questions are dodged, and evidence goes missing. The stone wall is built.
2. Deflect: Blame is shifted, usually to Republicans and the media.
3. Demean: People who question or criticize the Clintons get tarred as right-wing extremists, hacks, nuts, or sluts.

Which brings us to Charles Krauthammer’s appearance Wednesday night on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor in which another aspect of the deepening scandal — a deal involving General Electric — was explored. In a lively exchange with Bill O’Reilly, the Fox News contributor hammered Hillary for her “moral corruption” and took a look ahead at what might happen to Mrs. Clinton in light of the fact that, “She burned the tapes, she eliminated the emails.”

You can watch Krauthammer’s fiery segment by clicking on the video above. A Fox News special report based on the new book Clinton Cash — a program called “The Tangled Clinton Web” — will air Friday night at 10p ET on Fox News Channel.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

American Double Standards On Display In Ukraine

Last week, two prominent Ukrainian opposition figures were gunned down in broad daylight. They join as many as ten others who have been killed or committed suicide under suspicious circumstances just this year. These individuals have one important thing in common: they were either part of or friendly with the Yanukovych government, which a US-backed coup overthrew last year. They include members of the Ukrainian parliament and former chief editors of major opposition newspapers.

While some journalists here in the U.S. have started to notice the strange series of opposition killings in Ukraine, the U.S. government has yet to say a word.

Compare this to the U.S. reaction when a single opposition figure was killed in Russia earlier this year. Boris Nemtsov was a member of a minor political party that was not even represented in the Russian parliament. Nevertheless, the U.S. government immediately demanded that Russia conduct a thorough investigation of his murder, suggesting the killers had a political motive.

As news of the Russian killing broke, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Ed Royce (R-CA) did not wait for evidence to blame the killing on Russian president Vladimir Putin. On the very day of Nemtsov’s murder, Royce told the US media that, “this shocking murder is the latest assault on those who dare to oppose the Putin regime.”

Neither Royce, nor Secretary of State John Kerry, nor President Obama, nor any U.S. government figure has said a word about the series of apparently political murders in Ukraine.

On the contrary, instead of questioning the state of democracy in what looks like a lawless Ukraine, the Administration is sending in the U.S. military to help train Ukrainian troops!

Last week, just as the two political murders were taking place, the U.S. 173rd Airborne Brigade landed in Ukraine to begin training Ukrainian national guard forces — and to leave behind some useful military equipment. Though the civil unrest continues in Ukraine, the U.S. military is assisting one side in the conflict — even as the U.S. slaps sanctions on Russia over accusations it is helping out the other side!

As the ceasefire continues to hold, though shakily, what kind of message does it send to the US-backed government in Kiev to have U.S. troops arrive with training and equipment and an authorization to gift Kiev with some $350 million in weapons? Might they not take this as a green light to begin new hostilities against the breakaway regions in the east?

The Obama administration is so inconsistent in its foreign policy. In some places, particularly Cuba and Iran, the administration is pursuing a policy that looks to diplomacy and compromise to help improve decades of bad relations. In these two cases, the administration realizes that the path of confrontation has led nowhere. When the president announced his desire to see the end of Cuba sanctions, he stated very correctly that, “…we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date. When what you’re doing doesn’t work for fifty years, it’s time to try something new.”

So while Obama is correctly talking about sanctions relief for Iran and Cuba, he is adding more sanctions on Russia, backing Saudi Arabia’s brutal attack on Yemen, and pushing ever harder for regime change in Syria. Does he really believe the rest of the world does not see these double standards? A wise consistency of non-interventionism in all foreign affairs would be the correct course for this and future US administrations. Let us hope they will eventually follow Obama’s observation that, “it’s time to try something new.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Netanyahu To Putin: S-300 Missile Delivery Will Increase Iran’s Aggression

ChameleonsEye /  ChameleonsEye /

Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu called Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday to convey his dismay over Russia’s decision to sell the advanced S-300 missile defense system to Iran.

Netanyahu’s office released a statement that said he “expressed Israel’s dismay at the decision and told President Putin that this step will only increase Iran’s aggression in the region and will destabilize security in the Middle East.”

“Vladimir Putin explained the rationale for the decision in the current context and highlighted the fact that due to their tactical and technical characteristics, S-300 have a purely defensive significance and pose no threat to Israel,” the Kremlin responded in a statement.

Israeli military officials consider the Russian arming of Iran an additional obstacle before any potential military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. One official told Israel army radio that the Russian decision is a result of the weakness the U.S. administration demonstrates in the talks with Iran and its approach to the multiple problems in the Middle East.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said that the Russian decision was a direct result of the bad deal between Iran and the six world powers over Iran’s nuclear program.

“Instead of demanding Iran put an end to the terrorism it instigates in the Middle East and around the world, it is being allowed to attain advanced arms that will only spur its aggressions,” Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said in response to the Russian move.

Interfax News Agency reported today that Russia’s Defense Ministry will be ready to swiftly deliver the S-300 if it gets the green light to do so,

Russia has insisted that its decision in 2010 to freeze the S-300 delivery was based on the sanctions the United Nations Security Council imposed on Iran over its nuclear program.

Israeli commentators pointed out today that sanctions are still in place and that delivery of the missiles at this point would be a violation of UNSC resolution 1929.

Others think Russia is trying to daunt Israel with the announcement of the delivery, as a way of keeping as much of the Middle East as possible on a Russian string. In light of where things stand today, they suspect what Putin is doing is redeveloping a bargaining chip to use with Israel. Russia is running around carrot-and-sticking everybody in the region that still has a functioning central government, they say.

Some suspect that the announcement of the delivery at this moment suggests a coordinated move by the U.S. and Russia to block an Israeli attack on Iran.

The official Iranian News Agency IRNA reported today:

“Supplies of the Russian S-300 air defense missile systems to Iran may begin any moment in line with the relevant decree signed by the Russian president earlier in the day,” presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday.

Petrov then said:

“The decree stipulates… no delays,” adding that the second provision of the decree states “it comes into force on the day it was signed.”

The delivery of the missiles will certainly hamper Israel’s ability to carry out airstrikes and missile strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, but it will take a long time before the system will be operable in Iran. So in the short-run, Israel will still be able to launch a military strike against Iran.

What has become clear, however, is that the Russian move says something important about the ability to restore the sanction regime once Iran would violate an agreement about its nuclear program with the six world powers.

Russia is willing to violate the sanctions for economic reasons. As Israeli analyst Ron Ben-Yishai pointed out today: ”the Russians were quick to establish ties with Iran before the sanctions were lifted so that Iran would pass on a significant amount of its oil production to Russian in exchange for weapons and Russian wheat. The Russian aim is likely to store the Iranian oil in Russia so that it will not reach the world market and by doing so prevent the further reduction of oil prices that would be fatal for Russia – all while promoting Russian weapons and agriculture industries.”

If this is the case, there is no chance that Russia (and China as well) will back a return to the sanction regime once Iran violates the deal.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Israel Alarmed By Russian Decision To Supply Iran With S-300 Air Defense Missiles

Vladimir Wrangel /  Vladimir Wrangel /

The Egyptian Daily Al Ahram reported on Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin has lifted a ban on supplying Iran with sophisticated S-300 air defense missile systems, after Tehran struck a deal with the West over its nuclear program.

A decree signed by Putin lifts a ban on “the shipment from Russia to Iran” of the S-300 missiles, the Kremlin said in a statement. Moscow had blocked delivery of the surface-to-air missiles to Tehran in 2010.

The report alarmed the Israeli government. Israeli officials responded with dismay to the report, saying the supply, if it goes ahead, would change the balance of power in the region.

The delivery of the S-300 defense missile system to Iran could prevent any Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Israeli TV Channel 2 reported. Channel 2 also cited unnamed American officials who reacted with concern to the news.

A decree signed by Putin removes a ban on “the shipment from Russia to Iran” of the S-300 missiles, the Kremlin said in a statement.

In 2007, Russia signed a contract to sell Tehran the S-300 system; but the system was never delivered due to strong objections by the United States and Israel.

Russia finally blocked deliveries of the surface-to-air missiles to Tehran in 2010 after the United Nations slapped sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program barring hi-tech weapons sales. Iran responded by filing a $4 billion suit against Moscow at an arbitration court in Geneva.

The decision to lift the delivery freeze comes after Tehran and international powers including Russia announced they reached a Framework Agreement that aims to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

The sanction regime against Iran is still in place, however. Therefore, the delivery of the sophisticated missile system seems to be illegal.

Global powers Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia, and the United States had said sanctions will only be gradually eased and want a mechanism to ensure they can be swiftly re-imposed if Iran breaks its word.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Putin Threatens Nuclear War – Are We Listening?

Mykhaylo Palinchak /  Mykhaylo Palinchak /

Russian President Vladimir Putin and the security forces surrounding him have their eyes on the Baltics. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were once part of the Soviet Union and an important access point for the Russian navy to the Baltic Sea. In fact, Russia still maintains control of a small territory next to the Baltics, Kaliningrad.

With the Russian involvement in Ukraine and the invasion of Crimea, NATO has been extremely worried that the Baltics are next. The alliance has been parading American armor across Eastern Europe in response to the Russian threat. NATO promises to not station alliance forces permanently along the border states with Russia; however, these new forces are to be “rotated” to get around this restriction.

NATO believes that Russia no longer deserves this consideration since they have actively invaded their neighbor in Ukraine.

It seems the Russian military and political establishment wants the West to know that forces stationed in the Baltics are a no-no. The Independent reports,

Russia has threatened to use “nuclear force” to defend its annexation of Crimea and warned that the “same conditions” that prompted it to take military action in Ukraine exist in the three Baltic states, all members of Nato.

According to notes made by an American at a meeting between Russian generals and US officials – and seen by The Timesnewspaper – Moscow threatened a “spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military” if Nato moved more forces into Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

The Russians told the meeting, which took place in Germany last month, that an attempt to return Crimea to Ukraine would be met “forcefully including through the use of nuclear force.”

The Russian military still cannot compete with NATO conventionally. Nuclear weapons are another story. Russia relies on its nuclear offensive and deterrent capability and is now rattling that saber in the Baltics and Eastern Europe.

The problem for the United States and our NATO allies is that our president does not care about Europe. It’s not on his radar.

He’s much more concerned about allowing the Muslim caliphate to flourish in the Middle East. Hence the snubbing of the NATO ambassador recently in Washington. We are in dangerous times indeed.  

Photo credit: Mykhaylo Palinchak /

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom