Tag: Russia

The BRICS Problem for America

The American dollar has long enjoyed a prominent position in the world, one that has allowed the United States to retain its superpower status and to elevate the quality of life for her people.

Unfortunately, all of this preeminence and prosperity may be coming to a disturbingly unpleasant end.

The BRICS alliance, which consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, is a group of nations that has assembled together. A newly emerging goal of the alliance is to move away from the US dollar and move towards the creation of a new global currency.

The ramifications of the BRICS coalition are profound, not only for America’s place on the international economic stage, but for the potential future of international relations.

Speaking at a recent economic event in New Delhi, India, Russian Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Alexander Babakov urged India and Russia to form a financial relationship that would include the establishment of a new common currency.

Babakov placed particular emphasis on the notion that both nations should work to obtain a new medium for facilitating payments.

“New Delhi, Moscow should institute a new economic association with a new shared currency, which could be a digital ruble or the Indian rupee,” Babakov said.

He also stressed that China would be a major player in developing a common currency for India, Russia, and China itself.

“New Delhi, Beijing and Moscow are the nations that now institute a multipolar world that is endorsed by the majority of governments,” the Russian official said.

He additionally emphasized the need for a new currency that does not rely on the US dollar or the euro.

“Its composition should be based on inducting new monetary ties established on a strategy that does not defend the US’s dollar or euro, but rather forms a new currency competent of benefiting our shared objectives,” he remarked.

Jim O’Neill, a British economist and a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is recognized for having coined the acronym BRIC, which initially stood for Brazil, Russia, India, and China. He used the term to describe rapidly growing economies that he felt would eventually dominate the global economy.

When South Africa was added in 2010, the set of initials was altered to read as BRICS.

The five BRICS nations have a combined area of 15,346,100 sq. miles (about 27% of the world’s land surface), and an estimated total population of about 3.2 billion (approximately 42% of the global population).

Russia, India, and China are included among the world’s largest countries by population, area, and GDP.

Since 2009, BRICS representatives have met annually at formal summits, where multilateral policies have been coordinated. China hosted the most recent BRICS summit in July of 2022. The next one is scheduled for this coming August.

In a paper that was published in the Global Policy journal in late March of 2023, O’Neill, urged the BRICS bloc to challenge the US dollar’s dominance. He stated that “the U.S. dollar plays a far too dominant role in global finance.”

The effect of the BRICS alliance on international finance and geopolitics is yet to be determined. However, it is clear that the current BRICS nations are attempting to position themselves as an alternative model to the G7.

The G7 is comprised of the world’s most advanced economies, including the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Canada, and the EU.

As a likely consequence of the war in Ukraine, the BRICS countries have distanced themselves from the efforts of the United States and its allies to aid Ukraine. BRICS nations have refused to take part in any of the sanctions against Russia.

Many European and US policymakers are rightly concerned that this group of nations may become less of an economically-oriented institution and more of a geopolitical alliance.

In 2014, with $50 billion in seed money, the BRICS nations launched the New Development Bank as an alternative to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. They additionally created a liquidity mechanism called the “Contingent Reserve Arrangement” to assist member states with payments.

The alternatives appear to be attractive to many other developing and emerging economies, and a large number of them have expressed interest in joining.

The BRICS bank has brought in new member nations. In 2021, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, and Bangladesh became shareholders.

Worldwide interest from other nations in joining the BRICS group is on the rise. The bloc is formulating criteria for new member states and may decide by the end of this year on whether to admit some additional countries.

South Africa is the 2023 chair of BRICS, and South African Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor recently revealed that a number of countries have approached the previous chair, China, about joining.

“The world is changing in very worrying ways. Countries are searching for like-minded partners around the world,” Pandor said at a press conference in Johannesburg.

“Many countries are finding that the approach of BRICS is one [in which] they would like to take part,” she added.

Reportedly, the list of potential new BRICS members includes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Algeria, Argentina, Mexico, and Nigeria. By brokering a peace deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, China paved the way for both nations to join BRICS.

A multipolar economic order seems to be advancing quickly, which is expected to have serious implications for America.

If the US dollar loses its position as the reserve currency of the world, this would mean a loss of more than just economic power and influence.

A new global currency could make it even more difficult for the US to enforce sanctions, which it uses regularly as an alternative to military action.

A global shift away from the US dollar may lead to far less geopolitical power for the United States.

It may also constitute a grave threat to the geopolitical stability the world has experienced up until now.

The Role of Projection in Democrat Politics

Back in the 19th century, famed Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud identified a psychological defense mechanism in human beings that he termed “projection.”

Freud’s concept of projection encompasses the notion that in order to avoid facing uncomfortable feelings about themselves, individuals will impose the same negative characteristics upon another person.

In my assessment, which results from my academic coursework, professional background, and ethics studies, there is another kind of projection that exists, which takes place within the moral realm of human consciousness, one that I term “moral projection.”

Moral projection occurs when an individual experiences feelings of guilt over acts that he or she has committed or omitted. This individual may subsequently find the uncomfortable feelings difficult to confront and/or manage. The conduct, or lack thereof, which evoked the feelings of guilt, also frequently becomes very difficult for an individual to own.

Using the defense mechanism concept, an individual may assign to another individual or group the same attitude and behavior that initially generated his or her own attendant guilt.

In other words, take your blame and pin it on another.

Moral projection has been used extensively by Democrats in their ongoing war against anyone who would get in the way of their agenda du jour. It continues to be wielded as one of their main political and propaganda weapons.

The idea that the concepts of good and evil are mere opinions, which have an elasticity in application that is dependent upon a situation, is often referred to as “moral relativism.”

The infiltration of conceptual moral relativism into our schools has degraded the consciences of generations of students at every educational level.

Simultaneously, it tilled the soil of young minds into fertile fields that were susceptible to the planting of left-wing doctrine. This was one of the ways in which the Judeo-Christian principles upon which our American Republic depends were supplanted.

A significant portion of young people who were infected with the poisonous weeds of moral relativism now endorse the ideas and actions of hate-based radical organizations and violent anti-American groups.

Saul Alinsky, an icon of liberals and leftist extremists, once wrote, “To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles. The real arena is corrupt and bloody. Life is a corrupting process from the time a child learns to play his mother off against his father in the politics of when to go to bed; he who fears corruption fears life.”

The resultant loss of a shared moral sense has enabled and even encouraged the use of political tactics that are devoid of conscience. Moral projection is one of the most blatant.

It is a horrible experience to be accused. For those who adhere to an ethical code, it is what keeps many in check from too freely accusing others.

Here are but a few examples of the moral projection arrows that the Democrats have recently pulled from their quiver and shot at adversaries:

-In order to deflect from the fact that the Democrats and their media allies have for months enabled violence in cities across the country, they falsely claim that the violence was caused by, as Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden recently said, “white supremacist groups menacing our communities.”

-In order to distract from candidate Biden’s numerous mental lapses, Democrats publicly accused President Donald Trump of having mental focus issues following his medical treatment for Covid 19.

-Democrats and the complicit media are fomenting fears over whether President Trump will accept the results of the upcoming election, while former 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton publicly advises Biden not to do so “under any circumstances” and the campaign hires hundreds of lawyers to go to court to contest election results.

I am not sure where the Democrats and their media cohorts can go to get their consciences back. But I do know where the American people can go to get their country back.

The Democrats Sham Lawsuit

fec-hillary-dnc-lawsuit-009-01-800x416

After more than a year, scores of interviews, mountains of documents, raids on witnesses, and tens of millions of dollars squandered away, there is still no evidence to support the allegation that President Donald Trump was involved in any type of “Russian collusion.”

In what appears to be a desperate attempt to get the “L” off its forehead, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has filed a lawsuit against the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks, putting forth a wild conspiracy theory to try and divert attention away from its embarrassing loss in the 2016 presidential election.

A host of federal laws that were supposedly violated are cited in the suit, including the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and tried-and-true fave of the left, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The lawsuit is a redux of the 1972 DNC lawsuit during the Watergate investigation against then-President Richard Nixon’s reelection committee, which ended in 1974 when the Dems took a settlement of $750,000 from the Nixon campaign on the same day Nixon vacated the Oval Office.

In a statement contained in a press release, current DNC Chairman Tom Perez publicized the suit using identical phrases that CNN and MSNBC guests and hosts have been parroting for almost two years.

Perez claimed the lawsuit was filed because “Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy” in an act of “unprecedented treachery.”

The timing of the legal maneuver is a huge tell. Recent news coverage has been splattered with stories about the much-anticipated book tour of former FBI Director James Comey, which has not exactly been going according to plan and has even managed to elicit its share of ridicule and disdain.

Two news stories involving the Obama appointed Inspector General have cracked the liberal media firewall: 1) a criminal referral on the fired former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe; and 2) the launch of a new investigation into Comey over the release of his self-incriminating memos.

Meanwhile President Trump’s poll numbers have hit a high-water mark and seem poised to go even higher with the historic news that North Korea may be willing to denuclearize. At the same time the Democrat generic ballot numbers appear to be falling.

Adding to a growing political anxiety for the DNC is the fact that the organization is running short of cash. It is for this reason and so many others that the group has seemingly adopted the Saul Alinsky strategy of pinning your political rival with the dirty deed you have committed.

Audaciously, this is the same DNC that rigged its own primary, as former interim DNC chairperson Donna Brazile has documented. It is also the same DNC that colluded with the Russians for real on the DNC bought-and-paid for fake dossier.

Legally speaking, the Democrats may rue the day that they filed this action. In civil lawsuits, defendants are entitled to conduct discovery, including having the ability to subpoena the production of documents and other evidence and depose witnesses under oath.

Republicans would no doubt jump at the chance to subpoena the DNC computer server and obtain the communications and documents that show how, in its own primary process, the DNC swindled the supporters of 2016 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

The DNC repeatedly refused to allow the FBI to access its server so that law enforcement could verify the allegation that Russia had hacked the server during the presidential campaign. Instead the DNC reached a dubious arrangement with the FBI in which a third-party company conducted forensic investigations on the server and shared details with the FBI.

The list of documents and witnesses involved with the purchase of the fake dossier and the subsequent FISA abuse scandal is lengthy and includes the names of McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, and Glenn Simpson, all of whom could be deposed as a result of the DNC lawsuit.

Additionally, defendants in the suit would be able to bring a host of counterclaims including ones that might involve defamation, conspiracy to defraud, and federal election money laundering.

Allegations that the Hillary Clinton campaign laundered millions of dollars in contributions from big name donors could also potentially become a part of the discovery effort.

As reporter Amy Chozick outlines in her book, “Chasing Hillary,” during the very same time period that the DNC lawsuit contends the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia, the Clinton campaign was engaging in an effort to elevate President Trump’s candidacy and tie him to the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Some Democrats are wise enough to see that the DNC lawsuit poses a whole slew of problems for them, as illustrated in the comments below:

— California Rep. Jackie Speier described the suit in a CNN interview as an “ill-conceived” idea that is “not in the interest of the American people.”

— Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the legal action is a “silly distraction.”

— Gloria Borger, the reflexively liberal chief political analyst at CNN, said that the DNC lawsuit is a “100% stunt” designed to “raise money,” adding that “they want to keep the story moving.”

The DNC needs to come to grips with the reality that it was a main player in the rigging of the 2016 presidential election, handing the nomination for president to a flawed candidate, who was under criminal investigation at the time of her nomination and who flat-out lost an election that diehard Democrats believed she already had in the bag.

A Timeline of Treachery

clinton-russia-ties-bill-hillary-sold-out-us-interests-putin-regime

2004

Frank Giustra of Canada establishes a firm called UrAsia Energy Ltd. to invest in uranium mining.

2005

At a fundraiser that Giustra holds at his Vancouver home, he meets Bill Clinton.

Giustra’s UrAsia company sends engineers to Kazakhstan, which is ruled by a regime that controls approximately 20 percent of the worldwide uranium supply.

Giustra takes Bill Clinton aboard his private jet to ostensibly tour several nations for Clinton Foundation work: Destination, Kazakhstan. Giustra seeks a business relationship with the Kazakhstan-owned uranium company. He and Bill Clinton dine with the authoritarian dictator of the uranium-rich country.

Giustra’s UrAsia company strikes a $450 million deal with the state-owned Kazakhstan company. UrAsia becomes a top-tier uranium producer overnight.

A former opposition party leader, who planned to publish documents indicating government corruption in Kazakhstan, is found dead from four gunshot wounds, three in the chest and one in the head. The Kazakhstan government rules the death a suicide.

2006

Giustra makes a $31 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, which is not revealed until December of the following year.

Giustra co-produces a celebrity-filled 60th birthday bash for Bill Clinton, an event that eventually raises $21 million for the Clinton Foundation.

2007

Uranium One, a South African mining company, merges with UrAsia in a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which maintains the Uranium One name, is controlled by UrAsia investors, including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who becomes chairman, and Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal is estimated at approximately $45 million. Giustra sells his stake the same year.

2008

Giustra donates $31 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Giustra holds a fundraiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, to which he pledges $100 million. The event, which is held in Toronto, includes performances by Elton John and Shakira as well as appearances by celebrities Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Robin Williams. The event generates $16 million in pledges.

2009

While Barack Obama assumes the presidency, the FBI begins to investigate Russia’s criminal activity in relation to U.S. uranium. Prior to Hillary Clinton assuming her new secretary of state position, the White House requires that she sign a memorandum obligating the Clinton Foundation to publicly disclose all contributors.

Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, gives $1 million to the Clinton Foundation; this is the same year that his company appeals to the American Embassy to help keep its mines in Kazakhstan.

Moukhtar Dzhakishev, head of the Kazakhstan-owned uranium company, is arrested for illegally selling mining rights to foreign companies, including some rights owned by Uranium One. American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks indicate concerns that Dzhakishev’s arrest is part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakhstan uranium assets.

A Russian entity gets a 17 percent ownership interest in Uranium One.

The FBI allows an American businessman to make kickback payments at the direction of Vadim Mikerin, Russia’s overseer of Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the U.S.

The FBI investigation uncovers proof that, between 2009 and 2012, Mikerin engaged in bribery and blackmail to compromise U.S. contractors in the nuclear industry.

2010

Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, gives $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation using his family charity; this in the same year that Russians sought majority control.

Uranium One asks the American Embassy in Kazakhstan to take up its cause with Kazakhstan officials. The American Embassy ultimately reports this information to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

A Russian entity seeks majority ownership of Uranium One. Since Uranium One owns mining interests in the United States, it is required that the transaction be approved by the Hillary Clinton-led State Department.

Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a one-hour speech in Moscow. The money comes from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin.

A Russian entity obtains approval from the U.S. to acquire a majority ownership interest in Uranium One.

2011

Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, gives $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation using his family charity.

2012

President Obama is caught on a hot microphone in a private conversation in Seoul, South Korea, telling outgoing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Vladimir Putin should give him more “space,” and that after his election he would “have more flexibility.”

Telfer, Chairman of Uranium One, gives $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation using his family charity.

(Over a span of years, Telfer’s charity has contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation. The contributions are not publicly disclosed, despite the agreement Hillary Clinton had made with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors.)

2013

A Russian entity gets 100% control of Uranium One, a company with uranium-mining stakes that now stretch from Central Asia to the American West. The company is then taken private. The deal makes the Russian entity one of the world’s largest uranium producers and gives Russia control of much of the global uranium supply chain, including 20 percent of U.S. uranium.

Summary

Investigative reporting by John Solomon at The Hill and Sara Carter at Circa have uncovered a sordid tale worthy of the best Hollywood screenwriters; a saga involving blackmail, corruption, and bribery conducted by the mainstream media’s favorite scoundrels, the Russians.

Details have emerged of a story involving a multi-year investigation, conducted by the FBI, into criminality and money laundering emanating from Russian entities. The Russian entities were attempting to strengthen Russia’s nuclear weaponry by obtaining access to U.S. uranium.

The FBI investigation took place when the Obama administration was in power.

Former President Bill Clinton was paid an extraordinary amount of money as a speaking fee while his wife, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, approved the uranium deal for the Russians.

Millions of dollars flowed into the Clinton Foundation from parties related to the Russia-uranium deal during this same time period. Hillary failed to disclose the monies received, despite her pledge to do so.

The FBI assembled proof dating back to 2009 that Russian operatives were trying to get their hands on U.S. uranium, and they were doing so using criminal methods. The FBI knew that several individuals, who were also major donors to the Clinton Foundation, created a company that they sold to the Russians.

The sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Uranium is considered a strategic asset, with a serious impact on national security.

A sale of this type had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of U.S. government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the Hillary Clinton-led State Department.

The Obama administration had evidence that Russia was involved in a bribery and extortion scheme, which started in 2009, but the information was kept from the public until October 2017.

Some familiar names are involved in the Russia-uranium saga, including the following:

— Robert Mueller was the FBI Director during the multi-year investigation that assembled critical information on Russia and uranium. Mueller is now the special counsel investigating the so-called Russia collusion matter.

— The multi-year investigation was headed up by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the Deputy FBI Director.

— Mikerin, the Russian operative, entered into what appears to be a sweetheart plea agreement with prosecutors in August 2015, a plea agreement co-signed by Rosenstein and head of
the Obama Department of Justice Fraud Section Andrew Weissmann, now one of the top prosecutors in Special Counsel Mueller’s office.

— After Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russian meddling case, Obama appointee Rosenstein is the same person who appointed Mueller as special counsel.

Reportedly, no details of what was an active FBI criminal investigation were given to Congress at the time of the Russia uranium deal.

Democrat Collusion

e3983121755b9609613fd57ca66eb579

Much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party, the establishment media, and the never Trumpers, after months of investigation there has been no evidence found that would indicate there was collusion during the last presidential election cycle between Russia and the Trump campaign. Likewise there is still no proof that a single vote was changed due to supposed Russian meddling.

Still, the media continue to run with the story as they have from the beginning without having any actual credible grounds that might bolster the Russia story’s veracity.

The Robert Mueller investigation nevertheless persists, seemingly in search of some kind of crime that could possibly support the notion that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to deprive Hillary of her presidential destiny.

Reportedly, the probe has focused on the social media, particularly the possibility that Facebook advertising sales to Russian entities may lead investigators to uncover some heretofore hidden illegalities.

The possibility that founder Mark Zuckerberg and/or other Facebook executives knew about ad purchases from Russian entities and failed to report potential illegal activities to federal authorities has placed the Facebook management directly in the crosshairs of the investigation.

The intriguing twist in this story is that the Russians that Mueller has been chasing actually used Facebook ads in late 2015 and early 2016 to promote the group Black Lives Matter, according to CNN. The advertising was specifically targeted to reach audiences in Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, Maryland, the places from which the racial tension emanated.

The reported objective of the Russians seems to have aligned perfectly with the Democrat Party, the Clinton campaign, and those on the political left. The Facebook ad campaign was, according to the cable news network, seeking to “amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos.”

In a recent turn of events, though, proof of collusion managed to make its way to light. What is startling, however, is that instead of finding evidence of collusion that favored the Trump presidential effort, the proof is pointing toward collusion that actually favored Trump’s opponent, Hillary.

It also turns out that Facebook may allegedly be involved, according to a significantly credible source, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Facebook head Zuckerberg and Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg evidently colluded with the Clinton 2016 election campaign; this according to emails recently released by Assange.

Using his Twitter account, Assange posted links to emails that were exchanged between then-Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and Sandberg, which showed the COO promoting the Democratic presidential candidate, providing research to her, and meeting with her on multiple occasions during the campaign.

“I still want HRC to win badly,” Sandberg said in an email to Podesta. “I am still here to help as I can.”

Sandberg added, “She came over and was magical with my kids.”

Podesta expressed his gratitude to Sandberg, in a January 2, 2016 email, for her assistance to the Clinton campaign. After wishing her a Happy New Year, Podesta wrote, “2015 was challenging, but we ended in a good place thanks to your help and support. Look forward to working with you to elect the first woman President of the United States.”

Zuckerberg himself acknowledged having met with Podesta and asked the campaign head, in an August 7, 2015 email, to refer the Facebook CEO to others with whom he could communicate, presumably in order to assist Clinton with her effort to secure the White House.

“I enjoyed spending time with you yesterday and our conversation gave me a lot to think about,” Zuckerberg noted.

“Thanks for sharing your experiences with CAP [Center for American Progress] and some of the choices you made as you put the organization together. I hope it’s okay if I reach out as my thinking develops to get your ideas and reactions. If there are any other folks you think I should talk to, please let me know. Thanks again,” Zuckerberg wrote.

In an August 7, 2015 email from Facebook Vice President of Communications Elliot Schrage, the contents of the email may point to further involvement by Zuckerberg with the Clinton campaign.

“John [Podesta], I wanted to add my personal thanks, too. Mark [Zuckerberg] can be a demanding and inquisitive student, and he was both impressed and grateful for your time and candor,” Schrage wrote.

The “inquisitive student” was apparently buoyed upon hearing the left wing thoughts of progressive Podesta.

“…your ideas and perspectives really moved his thinking. I know he was focused on the kinds of structures he should put together, but now I suspect he’ll be paying more attention to the types of people he needs – policy entrepreneurs and strategists – as he thinks about next steps,” Schrage added.

“Any and all suggestions are welcome among folks you know or have worked with.” Schrage wrote.

To what kind of “structures” and “next steps” was Zuckerberg referring, and why would the Facebook head be seeking input from Podesta? Logic would dictate that the two were working together to bolster the Hillary campaign.

Mueller and company have a great deal of work ahead of them in exploring the collusion that potentially took place between the Facebook CEO, COO, and the Hillary Clinton campaign, but only if the individuals involved in the investigation are willing to do their jobs.