Hillary Clinton: thwarting re-Sovietization or imposing Americanization? by Boris Volkhonsky…

English: Signature of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

English: Signature of Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“We are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.

”Indeed, they are. For that, the US has launched full-scale wars in close vicinity to the region (not to mention local clashes and a “limited” use of drones on a wider number of countries), slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, depriving them of the basic human right – the right to live; successfully destabilized the situation in their “Greater Middle East”, flooded the whole of Central Asia with Afghan opium and heroin (with metastasis reaching as far as Russia and Western Europe). And after that Ms. Hillary is trying to present her country as a champion of human rights and finds it OK for herself to criticize others.

As reported by the Financial Times, on Thursday, hours before meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a news conference that the US is to prevent Russia from integrating more closely with its neighbors in Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

“There is a move to re-Sovietise the region,” said the US Secretary of State. “It’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that. But let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.”

What irritated Ms. Hillary to the extent that she is obviously going to rethink the “reset” policy in relations with Russia, declared in 2009 and launched with her direct participation, is the process of growing integration between former Soviet states, and in particular Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which formed a customs union in 2010. In 2012, the union was transformed into a common economic space with prospects of turning into a Eurasian Union that would enable other neighboring countries to join it along lines similar to of those of the European Union.

In October 2011, in an article published by the Russian Izvestia newspaper, the then-premier of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin wrote, “There is no talk of reforming the USSR in some form. It would be naive to restore or copy what has been abandoned in the past, but close integration – on the basis of new values, politics and the economy – is the order of the day.”

So, there is a clear impression that when Ms. Hillary speaks of “re-Sovietization” , she barely notices the real goals formulated by Russian politicians, but rather suspects that Russia in its policy regarding its neighbors is following a pattern with which she, as the head of American diplomacy, is well acquainted.

Hence, her claims that Russia is following an expansionist policy, and hence her desire to see the retreat “of so many of the hoped-for indicators of progress” she saw 20 years ago.

And when Mr. Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov called Ms. Hillary’s comments “a completely wrong understanding” of integration efforts and said. “What we see on the territory of the ex-Soviet Union is a new type of integration, based only on economic integration. Any other type of integration is totally impossible in today’s world,” he was right in essence, but his words are sure to fall on deaf ears. As, for example, the vote in the US Senate on the so-called Magnitsky Act has shown, the top brass of US foreign policy are too blind-folded by the old stereotypes, and still believe they are living in the times of the Cold War.

But what Ms. Hillary’s statements do really reveal is the unchanging US strategy towards Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Despite her obvious blunders concerning the nature of Russian policy with regard to its neighbors, her statements concerning the US line really ring true. “We are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.”

Indeed, they are. For that, the US has launched full-scale wars in close vicinity to the region (not to mention local clashes and a “limited” use of drones on a wider number of countries), slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, depriving them of the basic human right – the right to live; successfully destabilized the situation in the “Greater Middle East”, flooded the whole of Central Asia with Afghan opium and heroin (with metastasis reaching as far as Russia and Western Europe). And after that Ms. Hillary is trying to present her country as a champion of human rights and finds it OK for herself to criticize others.

In fact, one passage from her speech is worth quoting once more – “Let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is.”

Thou hast said it, Ms. Hillary!

Boris Volkhonsky, senior research fellow, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies…

Windows to Russia…

Secretary Clinton in Laos by Fred Branfman…

Working from Within or Without?

Clinton’s visit to Laos should focus on cleaning up the 80 million unexploded bombs the US left behind from the Vietnam War. Instead, it’s all about realpolitik.

Alternet, July 10, 2012

A symbolic moment periodically illuminates both the true nature of U.S. foreign policy and how even once-idealistic youth become what they once opposed when executing it. Such a moment will occur on Wednesday as Hillary Clinton becomes the first U.S. Secretary of State in 57 years to visit Laos, where the U.S. has refused to clean up the 80 million unexploded bombs it left behind, bombs which have murdered or maimed over 20,000 innocent rice-farmers and children since the bombing ended in 1973 and continue to kill until today.

Secretary Clinton’s visit to Laos is part of the administration’s new attempt to contain China, and will focus on ”the Lower Mekong Initiative and ASEAN integration efforts” according to the State department’s press release. The young Hillary Clinton, an admirer of the New Left and activist for the poor, criticized a heartless U.S. foreign policy which plays power politics while shamelessly neglecting urgent humanitarian needs like protecting civilians around the world from being blown up by U.S. cluster bombs. Today, rather than signing the U.N. treaty banning them, she fights to weaken it. As a youth she regarded her predecessor Henry Kissinger’s bombing of Cambodia as “criminal “and “immoral.” Today, she follows in his footsteps.

Millions of Lao children have grown up believing it normal to live in a hellscape where one can suddenly lose a limb, eyes, or life by stepping on an unseen cluster bomb, and where it is common to meet whole families made destitute because a father died in an explosion while searching for food, or seeking scrap metal to make a few dollars, to feed his subsistence-level family.

The Lao people have been tormented by U.S. warmaking for 48 years and counting. U.S. leaders, who dropped more cluster bombs in Laos than dropped in the rest of the world, bombed Laos from 1964-73, destroying and causing an estimated 30,000 civilian casualties. From 1973 until today the unexploded ordinance (UXO) has killed and wounded many more. It has deprived Lao of land badly needed to feed their children and caused them to live in constant fear of sudden death.

From 1969-71, I interviewed refugees from the bombing in Laos who told me that cluster bombs, which U.S. airmen then called “antipersonnel” bombs, were the weapon they most feared. They reported that thousands had been dropped on their villages, and that most of the victims were children, women and grandparents. Lao and Vietnamese communist soldiers moved through the thick forests of northern Laos, and were largely undetectable from the air.

I brought back an antipersonnel bomb to the U.S. in February 1971. Although the communists knew all about these weapons, the information was kept secret from the American people and Congress. It was only by interviewing  U.S. military personnel that I learned how these bombs, which could not destroy buildings or tanks, were designed to maim — not kill — human beings in the hopes of tying up others to care for them; how steel pellets were replaced by flechettes meant to tear more flesh if one tried to remove them from the body; U.S. Airforce personnel at Udorn Airforce Base in Thailand had told me they comprised 80% of the bombs dropped on Laos. I also learned that each “pineapple” bomblet contained 250 steel pellets, and that one aircraft sortie dropped 1,000 bomblets, spewing out 250,000 pellets over an area the size of four football fields.

I also learned how the bomblets had been originally designed to take out massed troops but, given the difficulty of detecting enemy troops in Laos, U.S. leaders had instead consciously used them, in the words of a 1970 U.S. Senate Refugee Subcommittee report, “to destroy the physical and social infrastructure of Pathet Lao areas. The bombing has taken and is taking a heavy toll among civilians. My antipersonnel bomb became to me in those years a tangible symbol of U.S. leaders’ indifference to innocent human life.

At Present Rates It Will Take 1,000 Years for Laos to Be Bomb-Free

The U.S. has cleaned up only 0.28% of the Lao land it contaminated over the past 37 years, as it has spent only one tenth of one percent on cluster bomb cleanup of what it spent on bombing Laos ($61 million vs. $70 billion in current dollars). This year’s appropriation of $10 million to save living human beings may also be compared to the $105 million the U.S. spends annually looking for the bone fragments of long-dead U.S. pilots.

Mike Boddington, a former advisor to the Lao Agency in charge of bomb cleanup and founder of the COPE center that helps bomb victims, calculates that at the present rate  – given 8 million bomb-contaminated hectares and an annual U.S. and international expenditure of $15-20 million — it  will take over 1,000 years for Laos to be decontaminated, at a cost of $20 billion.

He also believes, as a rough estimate, that it will take 25 years at the present rate just to clear “high priority” areas in and around existing villages, about 2.5% of the total  bomb-contaminated land. ”Now that we have the cluster munitions ban, international eyes are focused on Laos. But the pace of clearance is snail-like, and assistance for victims is tiny,” he says.

Sec. Hillary Clinton will likely visit the 7-acre site of the new U.S. Embassy complex for which ground was broken on May 18, which will “provide embassy employees with a state-of-the-art workspace.” The U.S. will spend $109 million on the complex, eleven times more than the token $10 million it will spend on cluster bomb cleanup this year. This $10 million will clear 4,000 hectares, 1/2000 of Laos’s bomb-contaminated land.

When I interviewed the Lao government head of the UXO cleanup on the Plain of Jars in northern Laos in 2008, he stated that if he had 10 times more money he could clean up 10 times more land. If U.S. leaders were to spend $100 million on the UXO cleanup rather than a new unnecessary U.S. embassy — the present embassy was big and safe enough to conduct a major war in Laos in the far more dangerous 1960s, and there are now but a handful of U.S. embassy officials in Laos – they could have helped 10 times as many people and decontaminated 10 times as much land.

The Human Impact Of Cluster Bombs

The human impact of the unexploded bombs was dramatically revealed on the third day of the First Meeting of States Parties to ban cluster bombs held in the Lao capital of Vientiane in November 2010. Those of us attending the conference were shocked to our core when the English-language Vientiane Times published a front-page story and photo of the naked corpse of 10-year old Pui, who had been killed the day before:

A 10-year girl was killed and her sister injured on Wednesday by a cluster bomb that exploded in Thasala village … Ms. Pui was returning home from school, and picked up an unexploded bomb (which) exploded and caused serious injuries and extreme loss of blood and she died. (Her sister) Ms. Paeng (had) injuries to her knees, body and neck. She said that after the explosion she heard her sister coughing up blood and held her until help arrived.

Lao people continue to live in fear of UXO three decades after the Indochina war ended. Last month Mr. Ladone of Nhuanthong village in Xieng Khouang province, was injured when a UXO device exploded as he lit a fire in his backyard to warm himself. Mr. Ladone was blinded by the explosion.

The human impacts include not only actual people killed, blinded and deprived of limbs, but the millions of Lao who are forced to live in fear as they walk to school, light a fire or pick bamboo shoots to feed their families. And countless numbers of these subsistence-level rice farmers are denied safe access to land they need to farm in order to survive. “About 37 percent of the country’s surface is contaminated with UXO, preventing people from using agricultural land and making many areas uninhabitable,” the newspaper also noted.

Secretary Clinton’s State Department does acknowledge the problem. At an April 22, 2010 hearing, 29 years to the day after former U.S. Ambassador William Sullivan lied to Congress by denying that the U.S. was bombing civilian targets in Laos, State Department official Scot Marciel declared that:

During the Vietnam War, over 2.5 million tons of U.S. munitions were dropped on Laos. This is more than was dropped on Germany and Japan combined in the Second World War. On a per capita basis, Laos is the most heavily bombed country in history. Up to 30 percent of the bombs dropped over Laos failed to detonate. The UN Development Program has reported that ‘UXO/mine action is the absolute pre-condition for the socio-economic development of Lao PDR’ and that because of UXO ’economic opportunities in tourism, hydroelectric power, mining, forestry and many other areas of activity considered main engines of growth for the Lao PDR are restricted, complicated and made more expensive.’

Marciel also acknowledged the human consequences of UXO:

The explosive remnants of war continue to impede development and cause (close) to 300 (casualties) per year … At the level of individual victims, of course, the consequences of death or maiming are catastrophic for entire families.

Despite admitting the U.S. has caused ”catastrophic consequences for entire families,” the Department of State has basically ignored them. It for many years provided only $3-5 million annually for bomb cleanup, and only recently increased it to a still woefully inadequate $10 million due to the work of the public interest group Legacies of War.

U.S. leaders are prone to lecture others on their need to exercise “personal responsibility.” There may be no more shameful example of their own irresponsibility than their failing to take responsibility for the deadly mess they have left behind in Laos.

Secretary Clinton Pushing To Weaken the Cluster Bomb Treaty

The State Department’s refusal to adequately fund cluster bomb cleanup in Laos is but part of Secretary Clinton’s failures on the issue.

During the November 2010 conference in Laos to ban cluster bombs, many delegates commented on an obvious fact: while over 100 nations were participating in the conference, the major nation not represented was the country that had dropped the bombs in the first place. In a startling display of pettiness, the U.S. embassy refused to accept the Conference’s invitation to even send an official observer, the new U.S. ambassador  delayed her arrival in Laos until after the conference was ended, and the only official American present was a low-level political officer handing out a one-pager lauding America’s woefully inadequate funding of cluster bomb cleanup.

The U.S. has retained its giant stockpile of cluster munitions, by far the largest in the world, and reserves the right to use them whenever it wishes. It dropped 1.8 million cluster bombs on Iraq, 250,000 on Afghanistan. And in Yemen, the Daily Telegraph reported on June 7, 2010:

Thirty five women and children were killed by an American cruise missile armed with cluster bombs which struck an alleged al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen, according to a study (by) Amnesty International.

And then, in November 2011, Secretary Clinton took it a step further. She launched a major lobbying effort to significantly weaken the Cluster Munitions Treaty, as Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch reported:

The U.S. is touting a much weaker alternative (which) will fail to offer greater protections to civilians. In fact it could lead to an increase in cluster munitions, by providing a specific legal framework for its use. It would allow for continued use, production, trade and stockpiling of many millions of cluster munitions. It includes no obligation to destroy stockpiles.

In the end the U.S. proposal was defeated, and human rights campaigners hope that the stigma now attached to the use of cluster munitions will prevent the U.S. from using them in the future. But given that the U.S. government has ignored so much of the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights to which it is a signatory,1 whether the U.S. will cease using cluster munitions is still in doubt.

The Picture of Hillary Clinton

The implications of Secretary Clinton fighting against the ban on cluster bombs and for their increased use goes far beyond the personal. Though by no means a radical, Clinton was a prototypical and praiseworthy member of the “Sixties Generation.” She first came to national attention when, as Wellesley Commencement Speaker in 1969, at the height of the antiwar movement, she declared that ”our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life is not the way of life for us. We’re searching for more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating modes of living.” She also decried “the hollow men of anger and bitterness, the bountiful ladies of righteous degradation, all must be left to a bygone age.”

She went out of her way to praise the New Left, the wellspring of the antiwar movement, declaring that “a lot of the New Left hearkens back to a lot of the old virtues.”

She stated that a 1967 article by SDS leader Carl Oglesby in the Methodist magazine Motive, titled “Containtment or Change,” helped turn her against the war. She campaigned for Eugene McCarthy in 1968 and wrote her senior thesis on Saul Alinsky. She marched on Washington and spent the summer of 1971 working for the leading left-wing law firm in San Francisco — led by former communist Robert Treuhaft, husband of Jessica Mitford — and registered Democratic voters for the 1972 McGovern campaign. She became a mentee of liberal activist Marian Wright Edelman and an advocate for children’s rights. I spoke at a giant peace rally at Yale University in 1971 which her future husband Bill Clinton helped organize. Mutual friends spoke warmly of her during that period as a decent human being, concerned about the poor and opposed to U.S. warmaking.

It is hard to believe that, even as an earnest college student planning to “work within the system,” she could have imagined that she would one day become a U.S. senator and then Secretary of State who would support an invasion and occupation of Iraq that has killed, wounded or made homeless over 5 million civilians; strongly advocate a surge in Afghanistan that saw General Petraeus triple U.S. airstrikes and import 7,000 U.S. assassins conducting countless night raids; manage a Pakistan policy that has led 125 million Pakistanis to regard the U.S. as their enemy and vastly increased the dangers of nuclear materials falling into terrorist hands; support a new global U.S. assassination policy by drones from the air and 60,000 U.S. assassins on the ground; do virtually nothing to control climate change; support a global U.S. economic policy that impoverishes hundreds of millions of the poor while enriching U.S. companies and local elites; and become a scourge of whistleblowers and proponent of increasing illegal Executive power.

Her transformation has become most visible since she has become Secretary of State. Pictures of her today reveal the results of the inner conflicts and compromises between her once-decent ideals and present desire to conduct U.S. foreign policy. You can see in her face the “anger, bitterness and righteous degradation” she once decried. It is a rigid face, a face so different from the open-hearted and alive face of her youth as to be almost unrecognizable.

The true lesson behind this “Picture of Hillary Clinton” is not so much about the individuals who wield U.S. foreign policy but the policy itself; not who holds Executive power but what the institution does to those who do.

The indisputable fact is that the U.S. Executive Branch has killed, wounded or made homeless more people not its own citizens in more nations — over 20 million in Indochina and Iraq alone, including millions of civilians2 — than any other postwar institution on earth. If evil consists of destroying the lives of the innocent, no institution in our time has committed more evil. When once-idealistic people choose to execute its foreign policy — whether Barack Obama, John Kerry or Hillary Clinton — they wind up like the characters in George Orwell’s Animal Farm who, after taking power, behave like those they had overthrown.

Secretary Clinton will no doubt speak fine words during her trip to Laos. She is scheduled to make a “feel good” visit to the COPE center, which provides prosthetic limbs to the victims of U.S. cluster bombs, and will likely boast about the $470,000 the U.S. annually contributes to its funding. She will perhaps even be photographed hugging victims of the U.S. violence she once opposed and now perpetuates.

As she does so the rest of us would do well, before it is too late, to ponder the troubling questions that arose for me as I left a 2008 meeting on the Plain of Jars with a sweet-faced youth who had lost the use of his arm, a devastating blow for a villager who must farm to marry and have children — and even survive:

If some of the poorest people on earth are not safe from being tormented this way for decades, who among us is safe?

If our civilization cannot protect these Lao rice-farmers who pose no threat to anyone, how can it protect any of us?

If U.S. leaders cannot even now act to heal their pain, how can we regard them as legitimate leaders?

  1. As Jimmy Carter recently noted. [↩]
  2. For the more than 16 million Indochinese killed, wounded and made refugees, see “Dollars and Deaths,” The Congressional Record, May 14, 1975, p. 14262. For Iraqi casualties, see “5 Million Iraqis Killed, Maimed, Tortured, Displaced,” AlterNet, June 21, 2010. Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara estimated that 3.4 million Vietnamese were killed, of whom 221,042 were South Vietnamese troops killed by the communists. The other 3 million plus Vietnamese, including 1-2 million civilians, were thus killed by U.S. firepower, as were most of the Laotians and Cambodians killed during the war. To this must be added the countless more that U.S. leaders have killed around the world. [↩]

Fred Branfman can be reached at Fredbranfman@aol.com. More Fred Branfman. Read other articles by Fred, or visit Fred’s website.

Censorship and Disinformation in America by Lawrence Sellin…

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership”. His email lawrence.sellin@gmail.com

You will not see an article like this appear in any American mainstream media outlet.

Barack Hussein Obama is an illegal President. He is not now nor has he ever been eligible to be a candidate for or hold that office because his father was a British subject at the time of his birth.

Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that all candidates for the Presidency be “natural born citizens.” As defined in the binding Supreme Court precedent of Minor v. Happersett (1875) and confirmed in the subsequent ruling of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and others, all candidates for the offices of President and Vice President must be second generation Americans, that is, US citizens of citizen parents at the time of birth.

President and Vice President are the only U.S. political offices with that requirement. It was the intent of the American Founding Fathers that the chief executive and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces would not have dual allegiance or loyalty to a foreign power.

There is no ambiguity, although the Democrat and Republican parties and the media are and have been deliberately trying to confuse the American public as to the true meaning of natural born citizenship.

Case in point.

On May 1, 2012, Fox News Channel anchor Bret Baier posted an explanation of the term natural born citizen that was so factually incorrect that it must be considered propaganda.

It is well beyond the scope of this or perhaps any single article to document the full extent of the censorship conducted and the amount of disinformation disseminated, which has continued non-stop since the onset of the 2008 election cycle.

Why did that happen? The cause stemmed from political expediency and cowardice.

Since 1975, there have been numerous attempts by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to redefine or amend the Article II “natural born citizen” clause.

Having failed to change it legally, politicians seized the opportunity to amend the Constitution by a political fait accompli through the unexpected victory of Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democrat Presidential primary.

Long before the 2008 campaign, however, Obama supporters were already helping the candidate either hide his genuine personal history or create a false one.

The censorship and disinformation campaign about Obama’s ineligibility had its origins in February 2008 about the time he began to overtake Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Presidential primary.

Anticipating a likely challenge, Obama supporters, instead of reacting defensively, went on the attack through a fabricated controversy, sustained by the media, which questioned the eligibility of Republican Presidential candidate Senator John McCain. The basis of the challenge was that McCain was born in a Panamanian hospital while his U.S. Navy officer father and his U.S. citizen mother were serving at a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone.

The fake controversy was settled in April 2008 through Senate Resolution 511, which, in essence, was a political deal was struck between the Democrats and Republicans that would provide validation for McCain and, at least, cover for Obama on the issue of eligibility.

SR 511, a non-binding resolution with an unrecorded vote, had no force of law, but by passing it Congress created the conditions whereby the Constitution could be amended de facto through a back-room political agreement.

Republican involvement in SR 511 and the fear of being branded a “racist” prevented any meaningful vetting of candidate Obama after he secured the Democrat Presidential nomination in June 2008.

Thus began the conspiracy of silence and the disinformation campaign by the political establishment and the media.

Given the effort to prevent discussion of Constitutional ineligibility, it should come as no surprise that the politicians and media also protected Obama from investigation of allegations involving a forged birth certificate, a forged Selective Service registration and the use of a Social Security Number not issued to him.

The Democrats and the media don’t want to discuss ineligibility and criminality because they want Obama re-elected.

The Republicans can’t talk about those issues because of their dereliction of duty, their complicity in a cover-up and their unashamed cowardice.

Regardless of who wins the election in November, it is and has been the intention of both political parties and the media to bury forever questions regarding Obama’s ineligibility and crimes.

The truth would shake the American political system to its core because exposing Obama would also expose the endemic political corruption in Washington, D.C.

It is all about power and the financial rewards it reaps. The politicians and the media have it and they intend to keep it by any means necessary.

Lawrence Sellin

Windows to Russia

Gaddafi Executed After Capture…

Sick world we live in. Gaddafi shot up by a NATO/American Predator drone. Captured alive which was a miracle in itself. Then executed in the back of a truck after being paraded around with his legs shot up and such. A bullet in the temple! That will kill you every time…

The story has changed so many times but the correct one was out for a awhile and then the Western media clamped down and modified. On this side of the world I watched a video that was not altered. They have done their best to pull the picture of Gaddafi with a gunshot to the temple. They (NTC) admitted to executing Gaddafi…

Have you watched the videos of his capture? (Even the altered versions!) Take a good look! That is your new Libya and the people in charge in Libya. Those are the people that the West has supported to be Libya’s new democracy…

I guess it, takes one to know one…


Windows to Russia!

PS: I got to say that our great Western leaders are gloating over his death. They smile and brag. Maybe you should stop and think about what Obama and company are saying…

I myself say: “So American foreign policy now depends on drones, assassinat­ion and summary execution. So the question becomes: Was getting rid of Gaddafi worth giving up on the rule of law? :(”

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year… (Sic)

Kyle Keeton

PS: Video that tells it like it is from RT…

Now this next video you have gotta find disgust at. This is our government in joy. Hillary Clinton is so proud and laughing. I have never laughed at a death of anyone. For no one deserves that. NO ONE…

Russia Looks Toward China and not the USA for the Future!

Two major things happened in Russia the last few days.

1. Putin went to China for major talks.
2. Hillary Clinton came to Russia to try to get a Iran sanction scheme going.

So what happened? Glad you asked!

1. Putin walked away with a much stronger tie with China and energy deals worth billions that extend far into the future. China will be securing 20% of her energy from Russia in the future.
2. Then Hillary ran into a brick wall and the USA had to eat crow, over all the Iran sanction talk from American press and government sources.

You need to understand that the future is in Asia not America…

Windows to Russia!
comments always welcome.

PS: Then to top it off: It seems that the US delegation that came with Hillary Clinton spent all night partying at Russian bars. The next morning they were not a very sharp looking group of delegates. The word on TV was: “The USA officials did not look very well early in the morning when they had to work.” This of course comes from the fact that the delegates were seen buying beer at local kiosks and then they went bar hopping… (Oops)