Tartaria

There’s a story circulating on the internet regarding a country lost in the chronicles of history. A country that once seemed to be world known is now forgotten, buried in the sands of time. Tartaria, Tartary, or Grand Tartaria has been troubling online researchers as they dig in old maps dating back as far as to the 15th century. What intrigued the internet was a declassified document by the CIA, which mentions the deletion of this country’s history which seems to have been located in the land of modern Russia/Siberia & Asia.

According to the old world maps, at times it reached the borders of China and Mongolia. Little is known about the people inhabiting the land at that time and due to the lack of information people are still speculating if it was an area or an actual country. Europeans during the 19th century and earlier seem to have called Asian areas Tartary before they explored them and recorded them in greater detail.

This is an excerpt of the declassified CIA document created in 1957.

According to Wikipedia:

“Tartary (Latin: Tartaria) or Great Tartary (Latin: Tartaria Magna) was a historical region in Asia located between the Caspian Sea-Ural Mountains and the Pacific Ocean. Tartary was a blanket term used by Europeans for the areas of Central Asia, North Asia, and East Asia unknown to European geography. It encompassed the vast region of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, the Volga-Urals, the Caucasus, Siberia, Inner Asia, Mongolia and Manchuria.

Knowledge of Manchuria, Siberia and Central Asia in Europe prior to the 18th century was limited. The entire area was known simply as “Tartary” and its inhabitants “Tartars”. In the Early modern period, as understanding of the geography increased, Europeans began to subdivide Tartary into sections with prefixes denoting the name of the ruling power or the geographical location. Thus, Siberia was Great Tartary or Russian Tartary, the Crimean Khanate was Little Tartary, Manchuria was Chinese Tartary, and western Central Asia (prior to becoming Russian Central Asia) was known as Independent Tartary.”

Wikipedia claims that Tartaria was a blanket term and that not much knowledge was available to Europeans but in this book below written by Giovanni da Pian del Carpine in 1252 we can find an extensive research made about the Tartars and their empire.

Continue Reading at Medium.com…

(I recommend finishing this article before watching the videos. Write does a good job of covering what is fact whereas many theories thrown about in the below videos)

Putin, Vladimir

(born Oct 7, 1952) Russian president since the resignation of Boris Yeltsin on Dec 31, 1999. Demonized by the globalist elite controlled  MSM as the world’s tyrant, he is a converted Christian, a nationalist, pro-life, has eased gun restrictions rather than further restrict them, anti-GMO (banned in Russia as are the Rothschilds), against the New World Order and pedophile elite of the west, blocks the Soros NGO’s and other infiltration methods of the globalists to eliminate further corruption (including their agendas: homosexual, feminism, etc.), and has Russia becoming more conservative in values. On social issues and taxation, Russia under Putin is more conservative today than the Western Europe. He is not a criminal leader who ordered the murder of opponents or journalists (no evidence), did not order the hacking of the DNC servers, and is not interested in affecting US elections. He is thought to have restored order in Russia to a “managed democracy.”

When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that. In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Atatürk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he rescued a nation-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.

However, he is authoritarian, embraces many aspects of communist and socialist ideology (comparing communism with Christianity), and defends many world Communist and Marxist dictators (Venezuala, North Korea, Nicaragua, etc.), and Muslim leaders. By American standards, Putin’s respect for the democratic process has been fitful at best. He has cracked down on peaceful demonstrations (perhaps globalist attempts to create inner division). ‘Political opponents’ have been arrested and jailed throughout his rule. Some have even been murdered, but the evidence connecting Putin’s own circle to the killings is circumstantial, but merits scrutiny.

Alexander Dugin argues:

If we consider the situation in Russia more closely, we will discover that almost all that is said in the West about Putin is wrong. It is a complete caricature. The most important criticism of Putin inside Russia is not from the liberals. Liberals represent the smallest part of the critics. They are absolutely marginal… So the West is absolutely wrong in thinking that there is this big liberal opposition to Putin that is artificially kept down. The real opposition to Putin is growing completely on the other side of Russian society. It is growing discontent with “lunar” Putin, against the Putin who is surrounded by liberals. All the government is completely not only corrupt, it consists of pro-Western liberals. Nothing has changed after the last election.

When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that. In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Atatürk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he rescued a nation-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country.

Putin did not come out of nowhere. Russian people not only tolerate him, they revere him. You can get a better idea of why he has ruled for over 2 decades if you remember that, within a few years of Communism’s fall, average life expectancy in Russia had fallen below that of Bangladesh. That is an ignominy that falls on Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin’s reckless opportunism made him an indispensable foe of Communism in the late 1980s. But it made him an inadequate founding father for a modern state. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose writings about Communism give him some claim to be considered the greatest man of the twentieth century, believed the post-Communist leaders had made the country even worse. In the year 2000 Solzhenitsyn wrote: “As a result of the Yeltsin era, all the fundamental sectors of our political, economic, cultural, and moral life have been destroyed or looted. Will we continue looting and destroying Russia until nothing is left?” That was the year Putin came to power. He was the answer to Solzhenitsyn’s question.

There are two things Putin did that cemented the loyalty of Solzhenitsyn and other Russians — he restrained the billionaires who were looting the country, and he restored Russia’s standing abroad. Let us take them in turn.

Russia retains elements of a kleptocracy based on oligarchic control of natural resources. But we must remember that Putin inherited that kleptocracy. He did not found it. The transfer of Russia’s natural resources into the hands of KGB-connected Communists, who called themselves businessmen, was a tragic moment for Russia. It was also a shameful one for the West. Western political scientists provided the theft with ideological cover, presenting it as a “transition to capitalism.” Western corporations, including banks, provided the financing.

The oligarchs who turned Russia into an armed plutocracy within half a decade of the downfall in 1991 of Communism called themselves capitalists. But they were mostly men who had been groomed as the next generation of Communist nomenklatura­ — people like Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. They were the people who understood the scope and nature of state assets, and they controlled the privatization programs. They had access to Western financing and they were willing to use violence and intimidation. So they took power just as they had planned to back when they were in Communist cadre school — but now as owners, not as bureaucrats. Since the state had owned everything under Communism, this was quite a payout. Yeltsin’s reign was built on these billionaires’ fortunes, and vice-versa.

Putin Tells Oligarchs 'Russia First' or Else

This video below shows Putin offering Russia’s billionaires the choice between being dispossessed of their companies by the Government, or else signing an agreement with the Government, promising that they will henceforth place the welfare of their workers and of the people of Russia, above their own personal welfare and wealth, and only one billionaire there, Oleg Deripaska, hesitated, at which point Putin treated him contemptuously and Deripaska promptly signed.

In the incredible footage, Putin humiliates Oleg Deripaska, one of the world’s richest men with a fortune of $3.5 billion at the time.

On 27 April 2018, Deripaska ceded control over the world’s second-largest aluminum-producer, Russal, and he did it because the United States regime had recently placed him and his corporations under new economic sanctions, which are allegedly focused against Russian billionaires who support Putin politically.

If Deripaska wouldn’t cede control, then the sanctions-hit would be harder and more damaging to Russia’s economy, so Deripaska — in fulfillment of his agreement signed with Putin — ceded control.

In other words, Deripaska, whom Putin had actually forced to commit to placing Russia’s interests above their own, is now being treated by the U.S. regime as one of the chief people to ‘blame’ for Putin’s being in office, in Russia’s ‘dictatorship’.

This threat, by Putin, to Russia’s wealthiest (Deripaska having been one of the billionaires whom Putin didn’t dispossess when coming into power in 2000), wasn’t a staged PR event, but instead was simply the best-filmed instance of Putin’s standard policy, ever since becoming Russia’s leader: his policy that an aristocrat can lose everything if he places his interests above the nation’s interests.

Source: The Duran

Khodorkovsky has recently become a symbol of Putin’s misrule, because Putin jailed him for ten years. Khodorkovsky’s trial certainly didn’t meet Western standards. But Khodorkovsky’s was among the most obscene privatizations of all. In his recent biography of Putin, Steven Lee Myers, the former Moscow correspondent for The New York Times, calculates that Khodorkovsky and fellow investors paid $150 million in the 1990s for the main production unit of the oil company Yukos, which came to be valued at about $20 billion by 2004. In other words, they acquired a share of the essential commodity of Russia — its oil — for less than one percent of its value. Putin came to call these people “state-appointed billionaires.” He saw them as a conduit for looting Russia, and sought to restore to the country what had been stolen from it. He also saw that Russia needed to reclaim control of its vast reserves of oil and gas, on which much of Europe depended, because that was the only geopolitical lever it had left.

The other thing Putin did was restore the country’s position abroad. He arrived in power a decade after his country had suffered a Vietnam-like defeat in Afghanistan. Following that defeat, it had failed to halt a bloody Islamist uprising in Chechnya. And worst of all, it had been humiliated by the United States and NATO in the Serbian war of 1999, when the Clinton administration backed a nationalist and Islamist independence movement in Kosovo. This was the last war in which the United States would fight on the same side as Osama Bin Laden, and the U.S. used the opportunity to show Russia its lowly place in the international order, treating it as a nuisance and an afterthought. Putin became president a half a year after Yeltsin was maneuvered into allowing the dismemberment of Russia’s ally, Serbia, and as he entered office Putin said: “We will not tolerate any humiliation to the national pride of Russians, or any threat to the integrity of the country.”

The degradation of Russia’s position represented by the Serbian War is what Putin was alluding to when he famously described the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” This statement is often misunderstood or mischaracterized: he did not mean by it any desire to return to Communism. But when Putin said he’d restore Russia’s strength, he meant it. He beat back the military advance of Islamist armies in Chechnya and Dagestan, and he took a hard line on terrorism — including a decision not to negotiate with hostage-takers, even in secret.

One theme runs through Russian foreign policy, and has for much of its history. There is no country, with the exception of Israel, that has a more dangerous frontier with the Islamic world. You would think that this would be the primary lens through which to view Russian conduct — a good place for the West to begin in trying to explain Russian behavior that, at first glance, does not have an obvious rationale. Yet agitation against Putin in the West has not focused on that at all. It has not focused on Russia’s intervention against ISIS in the war in Syria, or even on Russia’s harboring Edward Snowden, the fugitive leaker of U.S. intelligence secrets.

The two episodes of concerted outrage about Putin among Western progressives have both involved issues trivial to the world, but vital to the world of progressivism. The first came in 2014, when the Winter Olympics, which were to be held in Sochi, presented an opportunity to damage Russia economically. Most world leaders attended the games happily, from Mark Rutte (Netherlands) and Enrico Letta (Italy) to Xi Jinping (China) and Shinzo Abe (Japan). But three leaders — David Cameron of Britain, François Hollande of France, and Barack Obama of the United States — sent progressives in their respective countries into a frenzy over a short list of domestic causes. First, there was the jailed oil tycoon, Khodorkovsky; Putin released him before the Olympics began. Second, there were the young women who called themselves Pussy Riot, performance artists who were jailed for violating Russia’s blasphemy laws when they disrupted a religious service with obscene chants about God (translations were almost never shown on Western television); Putin also released them prior to the Olympics. Third, there was Russia’s Article 6.21, which was oddly described in the American press as a law against “so-called gay propaganda.” A more accurate translation of what the law forbids is promoting “non-traditional sexual relations to children.” Now, some Americans might wish that Russia took religion or homosexuality less seriously and still be struck by the fact that these are very local issues. There is something unbalanced about turning them into diplomatic incidents and issuing all kinds of threats because of them.

The second campaign against Putin has been the attempt by the outgoing Obama administration to cast doubt on the legitimacy of last November’s presidential election by implying that the Russian government somehow “hacked” it. This is an extraordinary episode in the history of manufacturing opinion. I certainly will not claim any independent expertise in cyber-espionage. But anyone who has read the public documentation on which the claims rest will find only speculation, arguments from authority, and attempts to make repetition do the work of logic.

In mid-December 2016, The New York Times ran an article entitled “How Moscow Aimed a Perfect Weapon at the U.S. Election.” Most of the assertions in the piece came from unnamed administration sources and employees of CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the Democrats to investigate a hacked computer at the Democratic National Committee. They quote those who served on the DNC’s secret anti-hacking committee, including the party chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the party lawyer, Michael Sussmann. Then a National Intelligence Council report that the government released in January showed the heart of the case: more than half of the report was devoted to complaints about the bias of RT, the Russian government’s international television network.

Again, we do not know what the intelligence agencies know. But there is no publicly available evidence to justify Arizona Senator John McCain’s calling what the Russians did “an act of war.” If there were, the discussion of the evidence would have continued into the Trump administration, rather than simply evaporating once it ceased to be useful as a political tool.

There were two other imaginary Putin scandals that proved to be nothing. In November 2016, The Washington Post ran a blacklist of news organizations that had published “fake news” in the service of Putin, but the list turned out to have been compiled largely by a fly-by-night political activist group called PropOrNot, which had placed certain outlets on the list only because their views coincided with those of RT on given issues. Then in December, the Obama administration claimed to have found Russian computer code it melodramatically called “Grizzly Steppe” in the Vermont electrical grid. This made front-page headlines. But it was a mistake. The so-called Russian code could be bought commercially, and it was found, according to one journalist, “in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.”

Democrats have gone to extraordinary lengths to discredit Putin. Why? There really is such a thing as a Zeitgeist or spirit of the times. A given issue will become a passion for all mankind, and certain men will stand as symbols of it. Half a century ago, for instance, the Zeitgeist was about colonial liberation. Think of Martin Luther King, traveling to Norway to collect his Nobel Peace Prize, stopping on the way in London to give a talk about South African apartheid. What did that have to do with him? Practically: Nothing. Symbolically: Everything. It was an opportunity to talk about the moral question of the day.

We have a different Zeitgeist today. Today it is sovereignty and self-determination that are driving passions in the West. The reason for this has a great deal to do with the way the Cold War conflict between the United States and Russia ended. In the 1980s, the two countries were great powers, yes; but at the same time they were constrained. The alliances they led were fractious. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, their fates diverged. The United States was offered the chance to lay out the rules of the world system, and accepted the offer with a vengeance. Russia was offered the role of submitting to that system.

Just how irreconcilable those roles are is seen in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine in 2015. According to the official United States account, Russia invaded its neighbor after a glorious revolution threw out a plutocracy. Russia then annexed Ukrainian naval bases in the Crimea. According to the Russian view, Ukraine’s democratically elected government was overthrown by an armed uprising backed by the United States. To prevent a hostile NATO from establishing its own naval base in the Black Sea, by this account, Russia had to take Crimea, which in any case is historically Russian territory. Both of these accounts are perfectly correct. It is just that one word can mean something different to Americans than it does to Russians. For instance, we say the Russians don’t believe in democracy. But as the great journalist and historian Walter Laqueur put it, “Most Russians have come to believe that democracy is what happened in their country between 1990 and 2000, and they do not want any more of it.

The point with which I would like to conclude is this: we will get nowhere if we assume that Putin sees the world as we do. One of the more independent thinkers about Russia in Washington, DC, is the Reaganite California congressman Dana Rohrabacher. I recall seeing him scolded at a dinner in Washington a few years ago. A fellow guest told him he should be ashamed, because Reagan would have idealistically stood up to Putin on human rights. Rohrabacher disagreed. Reagan’s gift  as a foreign policy thinker, he said, was not his idealism. It was his ability to set priorities, to see what constituted the biggest threat. Today’s biggest threat to the U.S. isn’t Vladimir Putin.

So why are people thinking about Putin as much as they do? Because he has become a symbol of national self-determination. Populist conservatives see him the way progressives once saw Fidel Castro, as the one person who says he won’t submit to the world that surrounds him. You didn’t have to be a Communist to appreciate the way Castro, whatever his excesses, was carving out a space of autonomy for his country.

In the same way, Putin’s conduct is bound to win sympathy even from some of Russia’s enemies, the ones who feel the international system is not delivering for them. Generally, if you like that system, you will consider Vladimir Putin a menace. If you don’t like it, you will have some sympathy for him. Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That turns out to be the big battle of our times. In May 2019, he signed a bill into law ordering the creation of “a national internet network that would be able to operate independently from the rest of the world” likely combating the globalist control and censorship of truth.

His job has been to protect his country’s prerogatives and its sovereignty in an international system that seeks to erode sovereignty in general and views Russia’s sovereignty in particular as a threat. It is obvious that Putin poses a threat to the most powerful – the King makers behind the Imperial throne if you will. These string-pullers have been dividing the lower classes through Division for hundreds of years. And it’s always the same game: Divide and Conquer. In order to maintain power and prevent revolt they have always set group against group among the lower classes. Instead of rising up against “Them”, the manipulated masses kill each other.

This is also done internationally. “They” sow division among countries to make sure any competition is eliminated before it challenges the status-quo run by “Them”. War will be declared on the threat and justified by fabricated evidence and propaganda supporting the great cause!

Ergo “They” constantly use their obedient media to denigrate him by referring to him as a former KGB agent and therefore devious, thuggish and prone to espionage. No one can prove he actually meddled in American elections yet this is somehow proof of how diabolical he is! No proof becomes irrefutable proof.

Thirdly. Vladimir Putin is genuinely Russian Orthodox. Why is this significant? Well, as the great Russian Orthodox writer Dostoevsky once wrote: the biggest problem and danger in the world is Division. The antidote to this spiritual illness is “Sobornost” – togetherness.

This may explain why there is a steady stream of foreign dignitaries coming to Moscow month after month. Competitors and also enemies are coming to someone who seems to be working on bringing rivals together. Putin is even trying to pull Israel into the mix. “They” really hate that.

After all, Israel is the key to maintaining Division in the Middle East. And plenty of money is to be made there through Division and war.

The Deep State has many components all working in concert. One of these – the FBI – is currently making it clear that Vladimir Putin is their “public enemy #1”. He’s in good company here because Martin Luther King Jr – the great peacemaker – was also reviled and hated by this very same FBI. It’s leader at the time, J. Edgar Hoover, branded King – also a deeply religious man- “the most notorious liar”. Lacking any proof, Hoover had his team fabricate some.

Putin however is too smart. He offers good-will to every nation even though they may be hostile to Russia. It takes two to argue and Putin never argues. He explains his beliefs as if he were a philosophy professor. Persuasively. Logically.

This is not what “They” want or expect. It’s pure Taoism and Confucianism. Putin you see is also a devoted student of Oriental Philosophy. He has, no doubt, read Lao-Tzu who said – if I may paraphrase- “a leader must be like a tree that bends so it does not break”. Put up strong opposition and you will be broken. Bend and you will survive to bend again. .

This is why Putin drives Russian nationalists crazy because he does not fight back hard against the many provocations – from Georgia to Ukraine to sanctions. They say that Putin has no back-bone! Well, he does…but it bends.

The second important thing about Putin is that he was and still is “foreign service material”. What I mean by that is his moral compass. For foreign service, the old KGB not only recruited highly intelligent people, but highly moral ones as well. Not because they were an ethical organization, but because they knew morally weak candidates would be subject to temptations galore offered by the other side. Being a man of character Putin cannot be bought or otherwise tempted and this makes “Them” furious.

From the pits that were brought by the U.S. regime in Russia — including the massive heists from the Russian public — to the period of Putin’s rule in Russia, has been a sea-change, and the U.S. deep state regime cannot tolerate it; they want the U.S. elite’s looting of Russia to return.

A few years ago, Vladimir Putin mentioned Satanism and Pedophilia within politics, and he hasn’t been the first to do so. He expressed how there are attempts to normalize these practices within society and make it global. Putin has said that this power has used “imaginary and mythical threats” to impose their will on others. This isn’t Russian propaganda, it’s a strategy that has existed since the inception of politics. It represents psychopathic behaviour, but it’s masked by massive amounts of propaganda and brain-washing, to the point where individuals with good hearts join in because they believe they’re lending themselves to a good cause.

Putin has stated:
The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. (source)(source)
Putin has spoken up about other topics such as the Deep State and the men in “dark suits” that meet with the president and tell them who their boss is, false flag terrorism, and more.

Sources:

Chronology of Events Related to Vladimir Putin

German COVID Civil Rights Protestors Gather in Berlin to Protest COVID Lockdown; Call to Restore Sovereignty, Liberty and Democracy

German COVID Civil Rights Protestors Gather in Berlin to Protest COVID Lockdown; Call to Restore Sovereignty, Liberty and Democracy

Tens of thousands of protestors (~40,000) gathered in Berlin today outside the U.S. Embassy to protest the COVID lockdown and demand civil rights and call for a restoration of national sovereignty, liberty and democracy. At least 20,000 people defied a threatened government ban and COVID restrictions today to gather at Berlin’s Brandenburg gate. Despite attempts by state-run and mainstream media to demonize the protestors as dangerous, ...
Read More
“Greta Thunberg” Pranksters Fool Harris. Veep Candidate Invites Foreign Interference in Election

“Greta Thunberg” Pranksters Fool Harris. Veep Candidate Invites Foreign Interference in Election

The Russian pranksters who fooled socialist Senator Bernie Sanders and Democrat Representative Maxine Waters have struck again, this time reaching the top of the leftist firmament. Vladimir Kuznetsov and Alexei Stolyarov and their woman sidekick tricked reputed intellectual giant Senator Kamala Harris (shown), Sleepy Joe Biden’s choice for vice president, into thinking that she too was talking to young climate activist Greta Thunberg. The veep candidate never ...
Read More
Trump Campaign Sues New York Times For Libel Over Garbage Russia Article

Trump Campaign Sues New York Times For Libel Over Garbage Russia Article

The article named in the lawsuit was authored by Max Frankel on March 27, 2019 titled, “The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo” which claimed the Trump campaign had an “overarching deal” with Russian President Vladimir Putin — “the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy.” The lawsuit states The Times had no proof of its ...
Read More
Putin: As Long As I’m President, We Will Have ‘Mother’ & ‘Father’

Putin: As Long As I’m President, We Will Have ‘Mother’ & ‘Father’

Russia will not introduce politically correct terminology such as “parent #1” and “parent #2” any time soon, Putin told a constitutional reform working group on Thursday, as they discussed family values in Russia. “As for ‘parent #1’ and ‘parent #2’, I have already publicly said it and I will repeat it once more: as long as I am president, we will not have parents #1 and ...
Read More
Russian Gov't Resigns after Putin’s State-of-the-Nation address Proposes Changes to the Constitution

Russian Gov’t Resigns after Putin’s State-of-the-Nation address Proposes Changes to the Constitution

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has announced that the entire government is resigning in a surprise statement released shortly after President Vladimir Putin delivered his annual state-of-the-nation address. Accepting the resignation, Putin thanked the ministers for their hard work and asked them to function as a caretaker government until a new one can be formed. Medvedev and Putin had met for a work meeting to discuss ...
Read More

Russia

The largest country by area (17,075,200 square kilometers) and has the sixth largest population spanning from Eastern Europe to Northern Asia. Its capital is Moscow. Increasingly Christian and conservative, Russia opposes the homosexual agenda and is passing laws to reduce its numbers of abortion. Russia has for the most part repudiated its unsuccessful foray into communism/atheism, which harmed the nation from 1918-1991, although despite this, they retained a monument to the founder of Communism, Karl Marx on Teatralyana Square in Moscow. In 2015, Russia’s Ministry of Health signed an agreement with the Russian Orthodox Church to prevent abortion. The history stretches back over a thousand years, with rule by the Czars until communists took over the nation in 1917, and were subsequently overthrown in 1991. Russia was the largest constituent of the Soviet Union. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the nation became known as the Russian Federation. Russia had an extensive empire built up over hundreds of years, almost all of which broke away in 1991. (See Conservapedia)

Uranium One

a company created by Canadian entrepreneur Frank Giustra, in conjunction with former president Bill Clinton, in a deal that began in 2005 when Guistra and Clinton decided to corner the uranium market in Kazakhstan and ended up with the Clinton Foundation receiving $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow, with the speaking fee paid by Renaissance Capital, RenCap, a Cyprus-registered corporation controlled by former Russian intelligence officers with close ties to Russian president Vladimir Putin. Among important facts not mentioned in a Jan 12, 2012 DOJ statement are Lambert-Mikerin-Putin connections to Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, Robert Mueller, Barack Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder, and other top Obama administration officials involved in facilitating or covering up the Uranium One treason scandal.

Along the way, Clinton secretly established WJC, LLC, a limited liability company registered in Delaware using his initials as a code easily recognized by Clinton family members to serve as a “shell corporation” through which Giustra (and others) could make under-the-table money-laundered cash and stock payments to Clinton for services rendered, while various Canadian entrepreneurs made millions of dollars in mostly anonymous contributions shuffled to the Clinton Foundation in New York City via Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative (CGSGI) in Canada.

The deal with Russia was completed in 2013, thanks to approval by the Obama administration, which had received a crucial “thumbs up” from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS.) The CFIUS is an interagency committee that must approve transactions where a foreign entity might acquire control of a U.S. business or assets impacting national security. Among the nine voting members of the CFIUS at that time were: Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (CFIUS chairman), Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Attorney General Eric Holder — and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In an August 26, 2016 article titled “Hillary-Putin Uranium Deal: How Long Will Media Ignore It?” The New American reported that Secretary Clinton and President Obama had ignored repeated warnings from U.S. officials about the Russian scheme to acquire a strategic position within the U.S. uranium market, as well as the broader energy market. “Among the many documents to surface recently,” we reported, “is a State Department cable from October 2009 warning of the intentions of  Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear energy agency, as it ‘flexes muscles’ with regard to the global uranium market.”

State Department officials in Europe cabled Secretary Clinton, warning that a Russian strategy paper they had obtained showed Kremlin plans to gain “long-term supply of nuclear fuel” so they could, among other objectives, “shut” the U.S. company Westinghouse out of the nuclear market and expand Russia’s influence over Europe. The cable also warned Clinton that the plan detailed in the Russian paper “is consistent with Russia’s efforts to dominate the gas supply market in Europe.”

One named contribution involved Ian Tefler, a longtime associate of Giustra who made a fortune as a gold investor while he also served as chairman of Uranium One, who funneled $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2009, through a Canadian entity he controlled called the Fernwood Foundation.  Tefler made his contribution to a separate entity, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership – Canada, but as was the case with CGSGI, the funds ended up in the Clinton Foundation in New York City.

Then, in October 2010, Secretary Clinton, with the State Department being one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, an interagency committee operating out of Treasury, allowed Rosatom to acquire majority control of Uranium One, effectively giving Vladimir Putin control of 20 percent of all U.S. uranium, with Hillary Clinton allowing the State Department as a CIFUS member to vote a second time, in 2013, giving Rosatom permission to acquire all remaining shares of Uranium One, with the result nobody but Putin owned 20 percent of all U.S. uranium.

Throughout this period, 2010 through 2013, Mueller, who served as FBI head from Sept. 4, 2001 to Sept. 4, 2013, did nothing to investigate the complex payments to Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation that give the appearance of a “pay-to-play” arrangement with Frank Giustra that allowed Bill and Hillary to reap millions of dollars, provided Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did her part to push the Uranium One deal with Putin’s Rosatum to a CFIUS approval.

Records show that Frank Giustra ultimately contributed $31 million to the Clinton Foundation and State Department cables released by WikiLeaks that show State Department officials had obtained in the Fall of 2009, an internal Rosatom memo that warned about Moscow’s intentions as it “flexes muscles” in uranium markets.  Despite this warning – a year before the first CIFUS approval – Clinton did not recuse the State Department from the two CIFUS votes that gave Putin control of 20 percent of the uranium mined in the United States.

Hillary sends Mueller to Russia with uranium

The WikiLeaks tweet referenced a cable Secretary of State Clinton sent to the John Beyrle, U.S. Ambassador in Russia, the United States Ambassador to Georgia Embassy Tbilsi, and the Russian Embassy, dated Aug. 17, 2009, indicating FBI Director Mueller was planning to fly to Moscow on Sept. 21, 2009, to deliver on the tarmac a sample of highly enriched uranium (HEU) that the cable identified had been confiscated by the U.S. Department of Energy during a 2006 “nuclear smuggling sting operation involving one Russian national and several Georgian accomplices.”

The key operational language of the cable was contained in paragraph six:

  • (S/Rel Russia) Action request: Embassy Moscow is requested to alert at the highest appropriate level the Russian Federation that FBI Director Mueller plans to deliver the HEU sample once he arrives to Moscow on September 21. Post is requested to convey information in paragraph 5 with regard to chain of custody, and to request details on Russian Federation’s plan for picking up the material. Embassy is also requested to reconfirm the April 16 understanding from the FSB verbally that we will have no problem with the Russian Ministry of Aviation concerning Mueller’s September 21 flight clearance.

On June 19, 2017, Shephard Ambellas, the editor-in-chief of Intellihub.com, noted that the classified State Department cable in question proposed that FBI Director Mueller be the one to personally conduct the transfer of a 10-gram sample of HEU to Russian law enforcement sources during a secret “plane-side” meeting on a “tarmac” in early fall of 2009 was reminiscent of “the infamous Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton meeting which occurred on a Phoenix, Arizona, tarmac, back in June of 2016.”

Exactly why Secretary Clinton decided it was critical to arrange a clandestine transfer of this purloined uranium sample back to Russia, carried by FBI Director Mueller in a secret trip to Moscow has never been made clear. But several WikiLeaks cables show the State Department had been tracking Uranium One dealings with Kazakhstan since 2008, as seen here, here, and here. While Clinton apologists have insisted Mueller’s secret uranium mission to Russia has no connection to Uranium One or Secretary Clinton’s role in the CIFUS votes that allowed Putin to control 20 percent of U.S. uranium, the issue demands detailed investigation, especially since there is abundant evidence Mueller turned a blind eye to numerous highly suspicious, potentially criminal Clinton Foundation financial transactions related to Frank Giustra.

Did Secretary Clinton decide to return to Russia the sample of HEU the U.S. acquired in a 2006 Bush-era sting because the Clintons sought to communicate to Russia an interest in allowing Russia to gain control of one-fifth of all U.S. uranium via Frank Giustra’s Uranium One corporation, through transactions that promised to put hundreds of millions of dollars in the Clintons’ pockets?

In the final analysis, the question a Department of Justice grand jury needs to investigate include both whether the Clinton Foundation financial transactions involving Frank Giustra and Uranium One constituted criminal violations of federal laws regulating charities, and whether Robert Muller, as head of the FBI, acted as a “Clinton Foundation and Uranium One fixer,” equally complicit in the alleged Clinton Foundation crimes.

As Clinton Cash author Peter Schweitzer has noted:

A lot of people don’t realize it now, in parts of the Midwest American soil is owned by Vladimir Putin’s government because this deal went through. And in addition to the $145 million Bill Clinton got half a million dollars, $500,000 for a 20-minute speech from a Russian investment bank tied to the Kremlin, two months before the State Department signed off on this deal. It just stinks to high heaven and I think it requires a major investigation by the federal government.”

Now isn’t that special? Both the Clintons and their donor made out handsomely. Uranium One, which was gradually taken over by the Russians, would later be involved in a curious deal involving Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. As the New York Times reported:

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.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. 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. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well…

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.

So in exchange for donations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with husband Bill, gave Vladimir Putin’s Russia, a nuclear power, control of 20 percent of the world’s uranium supply. Is that what Hillary Clinton meant by a “Russian reset”? Yet neither Congressional Democrats, who accuse Trump and his son of being too cozy with Moscow, nor their wholly owned subsidiary, the mainstream media, are eager to talk about the Clinton uranium deals with Russia.

Actually, we no longer need an investigation of Hillary Clinton and Uranium One. This FBI investigation in conjunction to what we already knew is prima facie evidence of criminal corruption and intentionally putting of American national security at risk for personal financial gain. If an indictment of Hilary Clinton is not forthcoming, then Jeff Sessions should also be fired.

Writing for The New American in November 2017 (UraniumGate “Secret Witness” Comes Forward; Clinton Says Trump Behind Investigation), C. Mitchell Shaw reported on the then-pending testimony of William Douglas Campbell to Senate and House committees investigating the charges of Clinton-Obama-Putin collusion, as well as allegations of Trump-Putin collusion. Campbell was a confidential source/witness for the FBI for several years, providing thousands of pages of documents, as well as audio and video recordings, which are crucial to the Uranium One investigation and related Clinton-Russia deals.

Incredibly, although he was the crucial source/witness in the case for prosecuting Russian official Vadim Mikerin, Campbell was never interviewed by the Obama/Holder Justice Department, nor called to testify. Campbell was blocked from testifying to House and Senate committees by Loretta Lynch, who became attorney general when Eric Holder resigned in 2015. Clearly, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and their Deep State crime cabal cronies and managers want to keep the Uranium One story buried. They know they can count on their “mainstream media” allies help them in this regard, while diverting public attention with contrived Fake News stories, such as the Mueller investigation and the alleged “s***hole countries” remark by President Trump.

It’s not like the establishment press doesn’t know about all of this. In 2015, the New York Times published a pretty detailed report on Uranium One by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, entitled “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.” Five years earlier, in 2010, the Washington Post published an article by Philip P. Pan, entitled “Clinton adviser intervened to help with uranium deal, ex-Kazakh official says,” that lifted the lid (at least a little bit) on the Clinton-Giustra-Russia conspiracy. A smattering of similar articles have appeared over the past decade in the controlled media organs of the Deep State puppet show. Some of them have even been fairly revealing. However, in matters such as this, timing is everything, and the handful of articles that have been scattered over the past few years serve merely as window dressing that the media propagandists can point to and say: “Been there, done that; nothing more to see, move along.”

Thankfully, there remain some gutsy reporters and investigators — notably John Solomon, Sara A. Carter, Peter Schweizer, Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, Chris Farrell, Lou Dobbs, and Sean Hannity — who have refused to knuckle under and follow the controlled media herd.

Candidate Donald Trump repeatedly pledged that “Crooked Hillary” would go to jail. Although the Uranium One treason scandal is but one of the Clinton crime family’s many Russiagate crimes, and Russiagate is but one of many offenses in the larger Clinton crime wave, it is one of the most visibly important of Hillary Clinton’s transgressions crying out for prosecution.

Hillary and her co-conspirators in the Uranium One conspiracy need to go to jail. For reasons unknown, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has dragged his feet on this issue, and even misled congressional committees by stating that Lambert-Mikerin-TENEX/Rosatom prosecution is not connected to Uranium One, when in fact it is. Perhaps it is because he is listening to his Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the Obama holdover that Trump and Sessions unwisely put in the No. 2 position at DOJ. Like Robert Mueller, whom Rosenstein appointed to be Special Counsel to investigate Trump-Russia “collusion,” Rosenstein has a concentrated interest in keeping the focus on Trump and associates — and away from the Clinton-Obama cabal. A genuine investigation/prosecution of the real “Russiagate” collusion, conspiracy, and treason would put not only Bill and Hillary Clinton (and possibly Chelsea) behind bars, but also Barack Obama, Eric Holder, John and Anthony Podesta, Frank Giustra, Robert Mueller — and Rod Rosenstein.

Source: InfowarsAmericanThinkerTheNewAmerican

Chronological History of Events Involving Uranium One

Huber's Faux Investigation of Hillary Clinton Ends After Claiming ‘Nothing Worth Pursuing’

Huber’s Faux Investigation of Hillary Clinton Ends After Claiming ‘Nothing Worth Pursuing’

An investigation launched into Hillary Clinton in November of 2017 by the DOJ and US Attorney John Huber has ended. Failed Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Huber to investigate Clinton Foundation. The investigation ended without charges. Huber never interviewed any key figures in the two-plus years of his investigation. And key whistleblowers were never interviewed and their evidence was lost during the sham investigation. The House Oversight Subcommittee ...
Read More
Sixteen FBI Agents Raid Home of Clinton Foundation, Uranium One Whistleblower

Sixteen FBI Agents Raid Home of Clinton Foundation, Uranium One Whistleblower

On the morning of November 19th, sixteen FBI agents raided the Maryland home of a DOJ whistleblower who was in possession of Clinton Foundation and Uranium One documents. The whistleblower came across the devastating documents while he was working for an FBI contractor, according to the whistleblower’s lawyer. (Note: This order was likely in the works before Jeff Sessions was fired.) The Daily Caller exclusively reported ...
Read More
FBI Informant Testifies: Moscow Routed Millions To Clinton Foundation In "Russian Uranium Dominance Strategy"

FBI Informant Testifies: Moscow Routed Millions To Clinton Foundation In “Russian Uranium Dominance Strategy”

Undercover FBI informant William Campbell gave written testimony to Congressional investigators after an "iron clad" gag order was lifted in October Campbell was a highly valued CIA and FBI asset deeply embedded in the Russian nuclear industry while Robert Mueller was the Director of the FBI Campbell was required by the Russians, under threat, to launder large sums of money - which allowed the FBI to uncover a massive Russian "nuclear ...
Read More
House Republicans Request Investigation on the Clinton Foundation

House Republicans Request Investigation on the Clinton Foundation

A request to investigate the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation on charges of “public corruption” was made in a letter by 64 House Republicans to the IRS, FBI and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charging the foundation is “lawless.” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen referred congressional charges of corrupt Clinton Foundation “pay-to-play” activities to his tax agency’s exempt operations office for investigation. Political and corporate favors follow ...
Read More
Rancher Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

Rancher Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

The incident began when the headquarters of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon were seized and occupied by an armed group affiliated with a sovereign citizen movement to defend against big government bullying and injustice. The seizure occurred immediately after an earlier peaceful march in protest of the prison sentences for ranchers Dwight Hammond and his son, Steven Hammond. The Hammond's were convicted of arson for starting a backfire to prevent a larger lightning ...
Read More

Operation Keelhaul

Operation Keelhaul was a secret military operation agreed to a the Yalta Conference that forcibly returned 2.5 million Russians captured during World War II back to the communist Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin would punish these freedom lovers who sought to defeat communism that had destroyed freedom in their homeland Russia. The Allies, against the Geneva rules, would turn over these brave men to the very dictator they escaped from where they would be sent to the horror of the gulags as “traitors” to communism. The operation was kept secret from the American people for decades and is  still seldom mentioned. The term “keelhaul” refers the most brutal punishment inflicted on a sailor, whereby a sailor is tortured by tying him in ropes and hauling him under a boat’s keel to virtually certain death. (more HERE)