According to RT in French, the report showing the videos released by Russian Defense Ministry, while the French reporter was talking about US airstrikes, was aired on February 4.
The French report on anti-terrorist operations in Syria and its Aleppo province first featured a short story strongly criticizing airstrikes carried out by the Russian Air Force in the region. The journalist then proceeded to tell the audience about the objectives of the “minimum civilian casualties” western operation, led by the United States.
“The planes of the US coalition have a hard time finding targets to destroy,” the reporter was saying, while images of the Russian airstrikes were broadcast.
Having just praised the accuracy of US airstrikes, the reporter pointed to the video on screen, which showed the footage of Moscow’s anti-terror op, released by the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Commenting how “targets are very difficult to find” and telling the audience how the US and its allies have been destroying terrorist training camps, command centers, ammunition depots and oil facilities, the French channel kept showing Russian footage of its efforts in Syria.
This is not the first time videos from Russia’s anti-terror campaign in the Middle East have been used by western media to depict airstrikes by the US-led coalition. The Defense Ministry has repeatedly pointed out such cases, saying they were partly due to the coalition’s reluctance to share more information about its actions.
Unlike the Russian anti-terror operation command in Syria, the US-led coalition has not organized coverage for journalists in the region, ministry spokesman has said, giving the example of Euronews TV channel having used Russian Air Force footage while airing a comment by a representative of US Central Command on the coalition successes.
Earlier, American public television used Russian objective control videos – which showed Sukhoi bombers targeting Islamic State oil facilities – with a voiceover praising US attacks, the Defense Ministry said.
By Howard Kurtz
Published February 09, 2016
After the ridiculously close squeaker in the Iowa caucuses, the state’s Democratic Party said it couldn’t release the raw vote totals for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
That simply isn’t how they do business, party officials insisted.
Even after they audited the results this week, Iowa Democratic officials would say only that Clinton won 49.84 percent of the vote and Sanders 49.59 percent, reducing her margin slightly to a quarter of a point.
Sanders has called for the raw vote totals to be released. The state party says that’s not the way it conducts the caucuses. And the press has pretty much let the matter drop.
But it turns out that hasn’t been the practice in past elections. Here are the raw vote totals for Iowa’s 2008 Democratic caucus:
Barack Obama, 93, 952.
John Edwards, 74,377.
Hillary Clinton, 73,663.
Joe Biden 2,328.
It’s not a secret document. It’s available on CNN’s website.
Iowa Democratic Chairman Andrea McGuire wrote in the Des Moines Register that the raw vote totals are irrelevant. “These are not contests of popular raw votes—nor do we think they should be,” McGuire said. “Asking for raw vote totals demonstrates a misunderstanding of our process.”
But if it wasn’t a problem eight years ago, why is it such a big deal now? A spokesman for the Iowa party maintains it did not release the raw totals in 2008 and that the figures reported by CNN are probably based on journalistic estimates.
“Candidates are competing for delegates in the Iowa Democratic Precinct caucuses, which is why we report the statewide delegate equivalents won by each candidate,” the spokesman said.
Which raises the question: Why would the party put the media in the position of having to do their own calculations?
Obviously the raw vote makes little difference in terms of delegates. But if Clinton, as expected, loses New Hampshire, and it turns out Sanders got more votes in Iowa, that would be a double blow psychologically—and give the Vermont senator bragging rights in the first two contests.
It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that the state party establishment is trying to protect Hillary.
Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that McGuire, an Iowa co-chairman of Clinton’s 2008 campaign, drives a Buick with the license plate HRC2016.
By Terence P. Jeffrey | February 9, 2016 | 12:54 PM EST
(CNSNews.com) – The merchandise trade deficit that the United States ran with China in 2015 hit a record high of $365,694,000,000,according to data released Friday bythe U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
“The deficit with China increased $22.6 billion to $365.7 billion in 2015,” the BEA said in a press release. “Exports decreased $7.5 billion to $116.2 billion and imports increased $15.1 billion to $481.9 billion.”
The $22,615,700,000 increase in the merchandise trade deficit the U.S. ran with China last year was a 6.6-percent jump from the $343,078,800,000 merchandise trade deficit the U.S. ran with China in 2014.
The merchandise trade balance deals only with the goods that are imported and exported between the two countries. It does not include the export and import of services.
In recent years, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. has run a surplus in its exchange of services with China, while running a much larger deficit in its exchange of goods.
In 2014, for example, the U.S. ran a $28.077 billion surplus in services traded with China, according to BEA. That caused the overall 2014 U.S. goods-and-services trade deficit with China—which was $315.116 billion—to be less than the 2014 merchandise trade deficit of $343,078,800,000.
The BEA is scheduled to release the 2015 balance of trade in services with China (and other countries) on March 4.
The Census Bureau has published U.S.-China export and import numbers on goods going back to 1985. During the past thirty years, the annual value of U.S.-China trade has risen dramatically. So, too, has the gap between the value of the Chinese goods imported into the U.S. and the U.S. goods exported to China.
In 1985, according to the Census Bureau, the U.S. exported $3.8557 billion in goods to China and imported 3.8617 billion back—running a deficit of only $6,000,000.
By 1995, the U.S. was exporting $11.7537 billion from China while importing $45.5432 billion—running a deficit of $33.7895.
By 2005, the U.S. was exporting $41.1920 billion to China while importing 243.4701 billion from China—running a deficit of $202.2781 billion.
In 2015, the Census Bureau reported Friday, the U.S. exported $116.1863 in goods to China while importing $481.8808 billion—running a merchandise trade deficit with China of $365.6945 billion.
Even when the historical annual merchandise trade deficits that the U.S. has run with China are adjusted for inflation and put in constant 2015 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator, the $365.6945 billion merchandise trade deficit the U.S. ran with China last year is still the largest recorded by the Census Bureau.
“For the past several years, the U.S. trade deficit with China has been significantly larger than that with any other U.S. trading partner and several trading groups,” said a Congressional Research Service report (“China-U.S. Trade Issues”) published in December.
“Some analysts contend that the large U.S. trade deficit is an indicator that the trade relationship is unbalanced, unfair, and damaging to the U.S. economy,” said the report. “Others argue the large trade deficit with China is more of a reflection of global supply chains, where China is often the final point of assembly for export-oriented multinational firms.”
“A joint study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the WTO,” said the CRS report, “estimated that the U.S trade deficit in China would be reduced by 25% (in 2009) if bilateral trade flows were measured according to the value-added that occurred in each country before it was exported.”
As calculated by the Census Bureau, the U.S. ran an overall trade deficit in goods in 2015 of $736.1719 billion.
The largest contributor to that deficit was China and its $365,694,500,000 bilateral deficit with the U.S. The second largest contributor was Germany, with whom the U.S. ran a $74,192,600,000 merchandise trade deficit. The third largest contributor was Japan, with whom the U.S. ran a $68,647,900,000 merchandise trade deficit. The fourth was Mexico, with whom the U.S. ran a $58,363,700,000 merchandise trade deficit. And the fifth was Vietnam, with whom the U.S. ran a $30,921,400,000.
Donald Trump’s promise to build a massive, $8 Billion wall along the southern border of the United States – and force Mexico to pay for it – has been a staple of his stump speeches since before he even announced his candidacy. It’s drawn both applause and ridicule, as well as the standard left-wing charges of racism, from day one. Now, we know what at least one former President of Mexico thinks about it.
Felipe Calderon thinks it’s “stupid” and says his country will “never pay” for such a thing.
Donald Trump may want to build a wall across the U.S. southern border to keep Mexican migrants out but don’t expect Mexico to pay for it, former President Felipe Calderon told CNBC, calling the billionaire a “not very well-informed man.”
The GOP presidential hopeful insisted in October that if elected, he would build a wall along the Mexican border and get Mexico to pay for it. But Calderon, Mexico’s president from 2006 to 2012, told CNBC on Saturday that there was no way that Mexico would pay for it.
“Mexican people, we are not going to pay any single cent for such a stupid wall! And it’s going to be completely useless,” Calderon said.
Apparently, Calderon’s words have reached the Donald’s ears. He offered his response earlier today on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” It was, in usual Trump fashion, short, blunt, and to the point.
“Now the wall just got taller.”
…And that’s why people love Trump.
Written by Allen West on February 9, 2016
The most transparent administration in U.S. history? That will hardly be how we come to remember the Obama administration, and perhaps slowly we’ll learn more about what this administration has been doing in its final year. I’m quite certain we shall learn more of the inner workings after the Obama era finally ends. But even now there is a particularly disturbing revelation.
As reported by Newsmax, “A veteran official with the Department of Homeland Security claims he and other staff were ordered to destroy records on a federal database that showed links between possible jihadists and Islamic terrorist groups.
“After leaving my 15-year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack,” the former employee, Patrick Haney, wrote in an explosive column that was published late Friday on The Hill website.
Haney alleges that the Obama administration has been “engaged in a bureaucratic effort” to destroy the raw material and intelligence the Department of Homeland Security has been collecting for years, leaving the United States open to mass-casualty attacks.
After the [underwear bomber] attempt, Haney writes, President Barack Obama “threw the intelligence community under the bus for its failure to ‘connect the dots,’ saying that it was not a failure to collect the intelligence that could have stopped the attack, but rather “‘a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.”
But most Americans were not aware that the Department of Homeland Security’s employees suffered enormous damage to their morale from Obama’s words, Haney said.
Further, many were infuriated “because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material — the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.”
That is not all, as Haney continued, “Those records give DHS the ability to “connect dots,” explained Haney, and every day, the agency’s Custom and Border Protection officials use the database while watching people who are associated with known terrorist affiliations seeking patterns that could indicate a pending attack.
“Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that,” said Haney. “Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database,” he wrote.”
If the allegations from Mr. Haney are indeed true, what a damning indictment of President Barack Obama and his administration. If political correctness is more important than protecting the American people, we are witnessing something we have never before seen in our nation. We have a president more concerned with appeasing a certain group than abiding by his oath to the people, the American people. Does President Obama not want to face the fact that there is an Islamic terror threat in this country?
Could it be that Syed Farouk and Tashfeen Malik were enabled to conduct their nefarious actions by an administration more concerned with optics than security?
Ladies and gents, we’ve been here before. We all know what happened in Benghazi was not about an anti-Islam video…it was a coordinated terror attack. And if you read the book or saw the movie “13 Hours” you know an unarmed drone was feeding back video of the entire episode. And still President Obama — and Hillary Clinton — spouted off about a video being the impetus behind the planned attack.
The message that Mr. Haney’s piece sends is chilling and of course the liberal progressive detractors will dismiss his assertions. But do not forget the reports,which we shared here, about intelligence analysts from the United States Central Command (US CENTCOM) forced to scrub their theater intelligence reports on ISIS.
There appears to be reality and then Obama reality. One is about the real world, the other is about a world someone wants to exist, the world of false narratives for political gain. How many Americans will have to die before we realize how serious this charge truly is?
And let’s be honest here folks, if this were a Republican president and such a claim were made, it would be front page New York Times. Then again, no Republican president would be reelected if months before the election, four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, had been abandoned to die in a firefight that lasted 13 hours.
I just have to ask all of you who are so enamored with Barack Obama, why does he get a pass to do anything he wants, including endangering the lives of Americans?