Saturday, October 26, 2019

MAJOR NEWS THAT THE MSM HAS BURIED: Trump Approves Special Ops Raid Targeting ISIS Leader Baghdadi, Military Says He's Dead

NEWSWEEK
By , AND On 10/26/19 at 10:45 PM EDT 

The United States military has conducted a special operations raid targeting one of its most high-value targets, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), Newsweek has learned. President Donald Trump approved the mission nearly a week before it took place.

Amid reports Saturday of U.S. military helicopters over Syria's northwestern Idlib province, a senior Pentagon official familiar with the operation and Army official briefed on the matter told Newsweek that Baghdadi was the target of the top-secret operation in the last bastion of the country's Islamist-dominated opposition, a faction that has clashed with ISIS in recent years. A U.S. Army official briefed on the results of the operation told Newsweek that Baghdadi was killed in the raid. And the Defense Department told the White House they have "high confidence" that the high-value target killed was Baghdadi, but further verification is pending.

Members of a team from the Joint Special Operations Command carried out Saturday's high-level operation after receiving actionable intelligence, according to sources familiar with the operation. The location raided by special operations troops had been under surveillance for some time.

On Saturday night, after the operation had concluded, President Trump tweeted: "Something very big has just happened!" The White House announced later that the president will make a "major statement" Sunday at 9:00 a.m.



Baghdadi, an Iraqi national, is an ultraconservative cleric who became active in the Islamist insurgency against U.S. forces following the 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He was held by U.S. forces in the detention centers of Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca, where a number of future jihadi leaders rubbed shoulders while in military custody.

He went on to join Al-Qaeda in Iraq, rising up the ranks of the violent group as it merged with others to form the Islamic State of Iraq and eventually inherited its leadership in 2010, when his predecessor was killed in a joint U.S.-Iraqi operation. As the group took advantage of a U.S. military exit to further expand, he renamed the group to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham—or the Levant—better known as ISIS, in 2013, seeking to expand to neighboring Syria, where a civil war was raging.

Baghdadi's forces made lightning gains across both Iraq and Syria, and in 2014 he declared his group a global caliphate from the Grand Al-Nuri Mosque in Iraq's second city of Mosul in his only known public appearance as ISIS leader. Officially known from then on simply as the Islamic State, the group began to grab world attention not only for atrocities committed across the region, but in high-profile strikes on civilians in the West as well.


The United States involved itself in Syria by backing groups trying to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad in an uprising also supported by Turkey and other regional powers. The Pentagon began to realign itself by partnering with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces as ISIS grew increasingly powerful, Islamists overtook the opposition and Russia joined Iran in backing Assad against these factions.

Rival campaigns led by the Syrian government and the Syrian Democratic Force were launched to defeat ISIS, which began to lash out abroad with bloody attacks in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and beyond. The perpetrators of at least three mass killings in the U.S. professed their allegiance to ISIS.

The group began to lose ground in both Iraq and Syria in recent years, however, with a U.S.-led coalition, Iran and Russia among the international powers hunting for Baghdadi. Though various, conflicting reports have been offered as to his fate and whereabouts, no single government has acknowledged any knowledge.

The most persistent of these reports involved him being in the so-called Jazeera region. Once a hotbed for ISIS activities, the area was often described as being in poor health condition. The region was seized by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces—yet Baghdadi was nowhere to be seen.

"Baghdadi being in Syria follows his presumed pattern of life operating between Iraq and Syria," a former senior counterterrorism official, who has tracked and supported the capture of operatives traveling from Pakistan to Iraq and Turkey, told Newsweek. "If he is dead, that would be a tremendous blow to ISIS, especially if other seniors leaders were killed during this operation."

As recent as February, Vice-Admiral Igor Kostyukov, head of the Russian general staff's Main Intelligence Department, told the state-run Tass news agency that Baghdadi's "whereabouts are unknown," but "he is definitely not in Idlib." The site is the base of operations for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a rival jihadi group with ties to Al-Qaeda's former Nusra Front, headed by Baghdadi's former associate, Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, who refused to join ISIS in a move that created a major rift among the militant groups.

Assad himself was seen on a rare visit to the frontlines of Idlib province in footage released Monday. The Syrian leader told his troops "that the Idlib battle is the core to decisively end chaos and terrorism in all of Syria" and vowed to defeat the array of rebel groups there while also teaming up with Kurdish-led forces against any Turkish-led attempts to push further into northern Syria.

Facing nationwide defeats at the hands of the government and its allies, a number of Syrian rebel groups have opted to reorganize themselves with the support of Turkey. Ankara has mobilized these fighters to battle the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), the main component of the Syrian Democratic Forces, considered a terrorist organization by Turkey due to alleged links to the banned Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

Though Trump has withdrawn U.S. Special Forces from northern Syria, he has called for some troops to remain elsewhere in eastern Syria, where much of the country's oil reserves remain under Kurdish-led control. A convoy of U.S. military vehicles was seen rolling through the city of Qamishli on its way to eastern Deir Ezzor province.

Turkey has since halted its incursion following back-to-back deals with the U.S. and Russia, which has sought to restore Assad's authority at the country's northern border and facilitate a YPG withdrawal. This process remains ongoing, though reports remain of sporadic violence between the two factions, something that some critics of the U.S. exit worried may give ISIS a chance to resurge.

Asked how Baghdadi's death may affect the U.S. withdrawal, the former senior counterterrorism official told Newsweek, "If you are leaving you want to try to find your targets before you leave."

The Joint Special Operations Command, out of U.S. Army base Fort Bragg in North Carolina, is a sub-unified command of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Led by U.S. Air Force Lieutenant General Scott A. Howell, the command oversees special mission units such as the Naval Special Warfare Development Group and 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, known to the public as SEAL Team Six and Delta Force, respectively.

NEWSWEEK

Why conservatives should stop being cheerleaders for Tulsi Gabbard



It's easy to like Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Her calm delivery and non-elitist persona is a sharp contrast to her fellow 2020 candidates, especially when on the debate stage. While others like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Beto O'Rourke loudly compete for who can be the most extreme, she presents herself as a moderate alternative. 

Gabbard is less well-known than other, decidedly controversial Democrats. Throughout the campaign, her abysmal poll numbers have hovered around the 2% mark. But while she is not a legitimate election threat, she has gained the admiration of a portion of voters on the right. Her recent tussle with Hillary Clinton, where she defended herself against the claim of being a "Russian asset," only increased Gabbard's popularity. Republicans, eternally frustrated with Hillary, are eager to defend her. Many Democrats, aware that Clinton's comments in no way help their 2020 chances, have done the same. 

As personalities go, Gabbard appeals to a vast majority. But in terms of policy, she is as radical as the rest of the Democratic presidential hopefuls. 

While she does support Second Amendment rights, Gabbard is a vocal proponent of banning assault-style weapons. As a co-sponsor of H.R. 5087, introduced in the House last year, she is publicly acknowledging her belief that removing certain weapons would be a fruitful and productive step in the fight against gun violence.

But as David French noted at National Review at the time the bill was introduced: "We know it would burden the self-defense rights of law-abiding Americans without meaningfully addressing the problems it’s purportedly designed to address. We know it wouldn’t affect overall gun death rates. We don’t have evidence it would prevent mass shootings." With her stance on assault weapons, Gabbard blends in seamlessly with other leftists and their ideas concerning gun control. 

Gabbard may seem more down to earth than Sanders, but when it comes to funding higher education, she is fully on board with his ultra-left plan. Sanders' College for All Act, introduced in 2017, is a liberal's dream. Removing tuition and fees from undergraduate public higher education would be a big price tag for both the federal and state governments. According to Sanders, the bill would involve the following: 

"This legislation would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public colleges and universities. Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. In addition, colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty." 

With a full one-third of the responsibility on states and restrictions on the hiring of faculty, the proposed legislation is a bloated, big-government nightmare. Still, many Democrats, including Gabbard, support it without reservation. 

One of the most disturbing aspects of Gabbard's platform is her attitude toward abortion. In a September appearance on The Rubin Report, Tulsi announced her personal, "more libertarian" position on the issue stating, "I think there should be some restrictions, though."

This would be an encouraging departure from her fellow Democrats if Gabbard allowed her private views to inform her public ones. But unfortunately, she does not. As she states in the interview, "I don’t believe that I should be telling anybody else the kinds of decisions that they should make for themselves or their family and therefore a woman should have the right to choose and I will stand up and fight to protect her right to do so." This varies in no way whatsoever from the other Democratic candidates who refuse to publicly protect life in the womb. Gabbard holds a 100% score from NARAL, having voted against a 20-week abortion ban in 2017 and against the idea of legally protected fetal personhood in 2018. In all the ways that she could make a difference for the unborn, she fails entirely. 

Along with these leftist positions, Gabbard also wants to do away with the Electoral College, shut down current nuclear power plants, drastically reduce our defense budget, and look into possible reparations.

A conservative, Tulsi Gabbard most certainly is not. 

Gabbard's affable demeanor and recent battle with Hillary Clinton have won her some fans. However, once you look past temperament and adversaries, the substance of her beliefs is just as misguided as the rest of the Democratic pack. 

Conservatives may be tempted to defend Tulsi against well-established and corrupt foes, but while doing so, they must remember that the enemy of your enemy is definitely not your friend. 

Justin Trudeau is Personally Trying to Silence Right-Wing Canadian Outlet Rebel Media

Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau is waging what appears to be a full scale lawfare campaign against right-wing outlet Rebel Media to prevent them from being able to cover political debates.

Trudeau had previously attempted to have Rebel, a Canadian outlet, banned from the election debates. He failed, but is now appealing the court’s decision — despite the fact that the two debates already happened and reporters from the outlet were allowed in.

On Friday evening, Ezra Levant, the owner of Rebel Media, received a notice of appeal to their Federal Court win.

Justin Trudeau is Personally Trying to Silence Right-Wing Canadian Outlet Rebel Media

Canadian Prime Minster Justin Trudeau is waging what appears to be a full scale lawfare campaign against right-wing outlet Rebel Media to prevent them from being able to cover political debates.

Trudeau had previously attempted to have Rebel, a Canadian outlet, banned from the election debates. He failed, but is now appealing the court’s decision — despite the fact that the two debates already happened and reporters from the outlet were allowed in.

On Friday evening, Ezra Levant, the owner of Rebel Media, received a notice of appeal to their Federal Court win.

“Trudeau literally put five lawyers on the case to stop us from getting into the debate. He not only sent lawyers from the Debates Commission and the Justice Department, but he also splurged and hired one of the most expensive private law firms in the country, Borden Ladner Gervais,” Levant wrote in a statement.

Levant told The Gateway Pundit that the “emergency injunction ruling — the court’s official written judgment hasn’t even been published yet. So I’m not sure how they can appeal a judgment that hasn’t been written (and that they obviously haven’t read).”

“They filed this appeal with the court four days before the election, but kept it secret until yesterday (when the election was over). I just don’t even understand it — other than as ‘lawfare,’” Levant continued.

Levant believes that the motive of appealing the court decision is to prevent them from being able to cover debates in the future, or to grind them down and force them to spend so much on lawyers that they can’t continue.

“He has a minority government, so it’s possible that we could be in another election sooner rather than later. But what I truly don’t understand is why he’s appealing the emergency injunction that’s obsolete,” Levant explained. “I just can’t understand it, other than as a way to cost us money and warn other journalists.”

Rebel Media has already spent $18,000 on legal fees in their fight for free speech and a free press. Levant estimates that the fight against Trudeau’s appeal may end up costing them up to $75,000.

 “It’s the first major decision Trudeau has made since his re-election: he’s going to restrict freedom of speech. Trudeau didn’t even wait for the Federal Court judge to publish their official decision, he’s appealing it sight unseen! In his notice of appeal, Trudeau is arguing that Rebel News cannot be journalists, because we don’t meet his standards,” Rebel Media’s statement continued. “Sorry, in Canada politicians don’t get to decide who is or isn’t a journalist. That’s not the Canadian way. That’s the Venezuelan way or the Iranian way.”


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/10/justin-trudeau-is-personally-trying-to-silence-right-wing-canadian-outlet-rebel-media/

Foreign Influence and Double Standards



Democrats want to impeach Donald Trump for inviting Ukraine to investigate 2020 election rival Joe Biden. But then why are they opposed to investigating whether Democrats used Russian disinformation to get the FBI to investigate Donald Trump in 2016?

That’s the double standard now on gaudy public display over multiple news reports that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the origins of the Russian fiasco of 2016 has become a criminal probe. Attorney General William Barr this year appointed Mr. Durham, a highly regarded and veteran prosecutor, to examine this part of the Russia tale that special counsel Robert Mueller chose to ignore. 

Yet you’d now think, judging from the political reaction, that Mr. Durham was Rudy Giuliani. “These reports, if true, raise profound new concerns that the Department of Justice under AG Barr has lost its independence and become a vehicle for President Trump’s political revenge,” said a joint statement from Democratic impeachment investigators Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff.

“If the Department of Justice may be used as a tool of political retribution, or to help the President with a political narrative for the next election,” the statement added, “the rule of law will suffer new and irreparable damage.”

This is called pre-emptive political damage control. Democrats know that the Hillary Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Mr. Trump, and Fusion hired former British spook Christopher Steele, who compiled a dossier of allegations about Mr. Trump from Russian sources that turned out to be false. 

Worse, Fusion funneled the dossier to the FBI, which used it to persuade the secret FISA court to issue a warrant to eavesdrop on Trump official Carter Page. Democrats now want to discredit any attempt to hold people accountable if crimes were committed as part of this extraordinary dirty trick.

But how can you be appalled about one form of foreign intervention in U.S. politics while whitewashing another? Based on the public evidence so far, Mr. Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden’s activities in 2016. Mr. Trump may also have delayed U.S. aid as leverage to persuade Ukraine’s new president to open an investigation. Yet the aid did flow again starting Sept. 11, even though Ukraine never opened the investigation of the Bidens that Mr. Trump wanted. In other words, Democrats want to impeach Mr. Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate an opponent, even though he failed. 

By notable contrast, the Clinton campaign’s invitation and payment for foreign intervention in 2016 against Donald Trump succeeded. Russian disinformation was used by America’s premier law enforcement agency to justify investigating an American presidential campaign. This is what Mr. Durham is looking into, and thank heavens someone finally is. 

Regarding potential crimes, Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham referred Mr. Steele to the FBI and Justice Department “for investigation of potential violation(s)” in 2018 related to the dossier and Mr. Steele’s public comments. Devin Nunes, former head of the House Intelligence Committee, also sent eight criminal referrals to Justice this year related to the Russia probe, including leaks of “highly classified material.”

Mr. Durham may decide not to charge anyone with crimes in the end, and that’s fine. What Americans deserve to know is what happened, including who in the Obama Administration or FBI worked with Fusion GPS, whether the White House or CIA were involved, and what James Comey’s FBI told the FISA court. People need to be held publicly accountable so reforms can be made and to serve as a deterrent so this doesn’t happen again.

Mr. Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine will be investigated to a fare-thee-well, and it seems inevitable that Democrats will impeach him. They have wanted to do so since the day he was elected. But they and their media friends can’t then object with a straight face to an investigation into the Clinton campaign’s solicitation of Russian misinformation in 2016. Their double standard is impeaching the credibility of their impeachment of Donald Trump.

The House of Cards is Collapsing

It all starts with one corrupt move.  Then that one corrupt move gets compounded by another and another and another. Before long, the house of cards cannot withstand the weight of all that corruption – 
no matter how many people work to shore it up.



When the news broke yesterday that the DOJ investigation into the genesis of the RussiaGate hoax had shifted to a criminal investigation, the panic that arose from the news media was fun to watch.  RussiaGate was a house of cards.  And that house of cards is collapsing.

I think the biggest mistake the plotters made was assuming that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016 and therefore their attempt to interfere with the election would never see the light of day.

That confidence made them sloppy.  These guys left a trail behind them like a slug on the sidewalk.  And clearly the DOJ is having no problem following that trail.

But this house of cards is made up of far more than just their attempt to interfere with the 2016 election.

Because Donald Trump won.

And these guys knew they left a very easy-to-follow trail in their wake.

What’s the old saying?  It isn’t just the crime; it’s the cover-up.

And how did they cover up their election interference?

By trying to destroy the man who defeated Clinton — all in hopes of hiding what they did.

What probably began as a well-crafted, carefully-guarded plot quickly turned into a desperate, ham-handed scramble.

They enlisted the help of Democrat politicians, members of the FBI and Intelligence Community.  And in the stupidest move, they even brought the news media in on their plans.

In other words, the house of cards grew even bigger.

The more people you bring in to your conspiracy, the more likely it is the conspiracy will be exposed.

And it’s been exposed.

I don’t know how many of you know the story of David and Bathsheba from the Old Testament. But here goes.

Bathsheba was the beautiful wife of King David’s general Uriah.

While Uriah was at war, David became quite smitten with Bathsheba. So he slept with her.

And, as happens on occasion, Bathsheba became pregnant with David’s child.

Faced with a bit of problem, David arranges for Uriah to come back from the war in hopes of getting him to sleep with his wife to cover up the child’s paternity.  But Uriah, loyal soldier that he was, returned, but refused to spend the night at home with his wife. Instead, he slept at the entrance to the palace.

Desperate to keep his affair with Bathsheba a secret, David had Uriah sent back to the war with instructions to put him in the heat of the battle hoping to get Uriah killed.

And it worked.

With Uriah dead, David marries Bathsheba.

And nobody was the wiser.  Or so David thought.

Unfortunately for him, this house of cards that he built did not escape the notice of God.  So God sends his prophet Nathan to David.  And Nathan calls King David out for his sins.

It was the absolute low point of David’s life. And for good reason.

Read Psalm 51 and you will understand David’s anguish and shame.

It all starts with one corrupt move.  Then that one corrupt move gets compounded by another and another and another.

Before long, the house of cards cannot withstand the weight of all that corruption – no matter how many people work to shore it up.

Eventually, as Shakespeare put it, the truth will out.


But like King David, the plotters are still scrambling to cover things up.

It’s too late.  But what else can they do?

Democrats in Congress, pundits on cable news, compliant reporters from the major newspapers, and the plotters themselves are now seeking to destroy Attorney General Barr and John Durham.


I wonder how long before the builders of this house of cards use the word “lynching” to describe what’s happening.

This is the reason for the breakneck speed of the Soviet-style Shampeachment going on behind closed doors.
They know the house of cards is collapsing.  So Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi are trying to beat the clock and get impeachment done before the collapse is complete.

As Julie Kelly points out in her column
Who Will Fall First? Trump or the ‘Praetorian Guard?’

As Barr gets closer to the key people involved in concocting the phony Trump-Russia collusion hoax—which included the use of powerful surveillance tools and government informants—House Democrats are escalating efforts in their attempt to impeach Trump before Barr’s department starts issuing indictments. If Trump goes down before Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham, his point man on the investigation, can complete their work, that investigation could be completely discredited if not halted altogether as the by-product of an illegitimate presidency.

I think Julie Kelly is right.

This Shampeachment is the Hail Mary attempt to keep the house of cards from collapsing on top of everyone involved.

And their reasons for this Shampeachment are completely self-serving.

As Julie Kelly points out:

The outcome of the multiple lines of inquiry into the conduct of the modern-day Praetorian Guard likely will be very bad news for dozens of Democratic officials, including Joe Biden, who was involved in Brennan’s Situation Room briefings in 2016 about alleged “collusion” right up until Election Day. House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has been an integral part of the collusion hoax since its inception, which is why he is working overtime on his “impeachment inquiry” before he himself is implicated.

This is one reason why, despite the huffy outrage from the Well-I-Never-Trumpers, it’s good that the House Republicans are disrupting Schiff’s self-serving Star Chamber.

They know what Schiff is doing. And it has nothing to do with his “Constitutional duty” or holding the President to account.

It’s all part of the cover-up.


RussiaGate and its cover-up are about so much more than simply taking down a President they hate.

I’ve said before, it isn’t Trump they hate, they hate us. And they do not want the American people electing their own President.

This was, without question, an attempted coup.

Now the coup’s plotters are about to be held to account and they’re panicked and desperate.

Just like King David, these people will stop at nothing to hide their venal corruption in order to spare themselves the consequences of their actions.

And I imagine the builders of this house of cards are going to get a hell of a lot more desperate before this is over.

Young Adults Fed Up with SJW and LGBTQ Tyranny

 Article by Lloyd Marcus in "The American Thinker":

The new “Batwoman” TV series featuring an openly lesbian Batwoman is failing big-time. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that young adults are turned off by the show's extreme woke and SJW (social justice warrior) politically correct messaging. “Woke” means you are aware of social and racial injustice. “Woke” also means straight white men are the source of all evil and must be punished. Women and minorities are perfect in every way. Woke culture says anyone who dares criticize a woman or a minority hates women and minorities.

Batman fans are outraged over the “Batwoman” TV series trashing Batman and its in-your-face trashing of men. If there were such a thing as a woke-a-meter with a range of 1-10, “Batwoman” would receive an 11.

It was a pleasure to learned that young adults are fed up with SJW Hollywood writers and producers destroying their favorite movie franchises. The 2016 Ghostbusters movie bombed, losing $70 million, infected with woke. 
SJW has infected Star Wars and various superhero movies. Angry fans say, “Get woke, go broke!” Hollywood has declared that SJW, diversity and gender-swapping in movies is more important than entertaining stories.

Critics rave about movies that check all the right SJW boxes; praising homosexuality, feminism, and minorities while trashing straight white men. Meanwhile, fans avoid such movies in droves.

It blows my mind that despite losing mega-millions Hollywood is undeterred, hellbent on cramming SJW political messaging down our throats. As a Christian, I believe a spirit of anti-Christ is driving Hollywood's financially illogical behavior. Hollywood producers love to poke fun of and demonize Christians. They freely use Jesus' name in vain. And yet, they would never dare to use Muhammad's name in vain.

In response to the failure of the 2016 Ghostbusters movie, the filmmakers attacked the fans, calling them woman-hating trolls. The star of the “Batwoman” series, Ruby Rose, attacked viewers for the show's plummeting ratings. Rose said the show is not for old white men.

Clearly, Hollywood's SJW writers and producers have disdain for average Americans. Loyal fans of various movie franchises say they feel crapped upon. Ignoring fan's rejection, Hollywood pushes full-speed ahead on creating a new America in which wholesome traditions, biblical principles, and values are burned on the alter in worship to their god of debauchery.

Democrats and fake news media share Hollywood's agenda and hatred for average Americans. Average Americans love President Trump. This is why Americans of all stripes begin lining up at venues two days before Trump rallies. Democrats and fake news media attack Trump voters for rejecting their SJW politics. Hollywood attacks the public for rejecting their SJW propaganda movies.

SJW culture is destroying women's sports. Even leftist feminists are outraged that men who identify as women are dominating women's sports. Feminist leaders say not only is mainstream media blacking out their opinions, these women fear for their lives for saying it is crazy to allow men to compete as women in women's sports.

A part of me feels like saying, “Don't come crying to us. You repeatedly vote for Democrats who are hellbent on cramming the LGBTQ agenda down the throats of mainstream Americans.” Over 95% of the population is heterosexual. Why have Democrats, fake news media and Hollywood made forcing the LGBTQ agenda upon America the most important issue of our times?

Leftist feminists and my brain-dead black relatives typically side with Democrats against their best interest. Trump has black unemployment at historic lows. And yet, idiots in my extended family hate Trump simply because their Democrat plantation slavemasters tell them to hate him. They choose to ignore the truth that Trump has been awesome for blacks. Yes, their stupidity annoys me.

Folks, I am elated that hip young adults who are not particularly political are finally complaining about SJW culture being injected into everything.

Hollywood's laser-focus on promoting SJW has created a huge void for quality entertainment. We have a golden opportunity to fill that void. Perhaps, this is why well-crafted Christian movies are doing so well at the box office.
Conservative filmmaker Robert Kirk is seeking funding to produce his full-length feature film comedy which skewers the deep state. Film festival audiences laugh hysterically at Robert's award-winning short version of his film. Not only is Robert's film hilarious, he exposes the traitors who planned a silent coup against our president.

Please check out Robert's three-minute trailer of his award-winning comedy, Alien Anthropologists. Here is the link to his website. Your assistance in acquiring funding is greatly appreciated.

Batman fans cringed hearing Batwoman deliver her SJW line that Batman's suit will be perfect when it is resized to fit a woman. Leftist feminists are outraged that transgender cyclist Rachael McKinnon won the women's Masters Track Cycling World Championships. 

Young adults are fed up with SJW movies and TV shows and LGBTQ tyranny. I say thank you God.
 


Democrats Soil Themselves At News Of The Barr-Durham Criminal Investigation



As I reported yesterday, the Barr-Durham probe into the origins of the Russia investigation has now transitioned into a full blown criminal investigation. What this means is the ability to compel testimony, empanel a grand jury, and subpoena documents. Before this change, cooperation was essentially voluntary.

There are some dots to connect here, which while still speculative, are becoming clearer as the days pass. This change to a criminal investigation came at exactly the same time the Inspector General announced his report was nearly ready for release. It’s fair to assume that it likely contains some criminal referrals. There’s also the news that broke earlier today that Lisa Page helped edit and retroactively date Flynn’s interview 302s. Was something illegal done with that? To the layman, it certainly seems improper and it’s a trail that will likely be followed.

Aside from the details, much of which have been reported by RedState over the past few days, one of the more humorous aspects of all this is seeing Democrats begin to soil themselves at the thought of possible corruption dealing with the Trump-Russia investigation.

Let’s start with the committee chairs at the forefront right now.


Yes, that’s Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff, who are currently leading highly partisan investigations of the President complaining that Bill Barr is somehow a partisan. Keep in mind as well that John Durham is Barr’s top guy here and that he was appointed by Eric Holder to prosecute torture cases. He’s also got a history of mob busting. In other words, Durham is as far from a partisan as you’ll find at the DOJ. Democrats are purposely not attacking him directly, instead going after Barr, but the fact is that Durham is the one running this investigation on the ground.


Mark Warner, also known as Republican Sen. Burr’s boss, chimed in.


Notice the indication here that corruption should be brushed aside because it may somehow jeopardize “key international intelligence partnership.” He doesn’t expound of course, but his complaint seems rather hollow. If those partnerships include foul behavior, then they need to be jeopardized and if they are so weak that they can’t simply answer questions, then they weren’t worth much to begin with.

Barr has been before Congress many times. I’m sure he’d be happy to go again and embarrass those questioning him.

Here’s Dick Blumenthal, famous for lying about his service in Vietnam, ranting a bit.


Are you starting to see the trend? These people are nervous and their responses actually may be changing my mind a bit about whether something is going to come from this. People are starting to lawyer up and the political ramifications are obviously not good for Democrats. I do not think Durham would have moved to a criminal investigation if he didn’t have evidence in hand.

I’m old enough to remember when Democrats loved investigations until they suddenly didn’t. Many are on record asserting that if someone has nothing to hide, they should welcome being investigated. That was a very common theme throughout the Mueller ordeal. Now that the Obama administration is the target, including figures like Brennan, Clapper, and Comey, the flailing and consternation has begun.

The media are obviously losing it as well, doing their level best to the lay the groundwork for an “improper bias” narrative involving Barr’s work. You could see that in the Times report on this change last night. It’s all nonsense and should be ignored. While the left are going to do everything they can to muddy the waters, a lot of people are sleeping a little worse tonight.





Forthcoming IG Report Will Help Explain Why...


Revealed: 
Forthcoming IG Report Will Help Explain Why Durham Review Into Russia Investigation Origins is Now a Criminal Probe

Revealed: Forthcoming IG Report Will Help Explain Why Durham Review Into Russia Investigation Origins is Now a Criminal Probe
Let's start with the backdrop to all of this.  A counter-intelligence probe into the Trump campaign's potential coordination with the Russian government's 2016 electoral meddling eventually morphed into the Mueller probe, following the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey.  It ultimately found no collusion, despite years of wild speculation and hype.  How, precisely, did that original investigation get started?  And were there abuses by the Obama-era Justice Department and other governmental entities accused of partisan bias, relying on dodgy (Democrat-funded and possibly Russian-planted) rumors, and concealing key facts from judges signing off on surveillance warrants?  That's the first element.

The second element is the Left's irate loathing of Attorney General Bill Barr, which can be traced back to his use of the word "spying" in discussing the aforementioned surveillance on American citizens connected to the Trump campaign, as well as his appropriate handling of the public dissemination of the Mueller report, which triggered cartoonish bouts of irrational derangement.  That hatred, coupled with consternation about whatever is being discovered by respected US Attorney John Durham in an ongoing review approved and supported by Barr, explains the unsubtle efforts to paint the current 'investigation of the investigation' as a political hit job meant to provide cover for President Trump.  There have also been efforts to undermine the credibility of a related probe from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, focusing on possible FISA abuses and a handful of other elements, which is confirmed to be forthcoming:
First we learned that the IG report is about to drop.  Then we learned, as reported last night, that Durham's review has become a criminal investigation:
A probe by Attorney General William Barr into the origins of the Russia investigation has changed from an administrative review into a criminal investigation, a person familiar with the review confirmed to NBC News. The review is being conducted by Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham. The New York Times first reported Thursday that the administrative review has turned into a criminal investigation. It’s not clear when the change occurred, but the probe began in May as an administrative review. The Times reported that the change in status gives Durham the power to subpoena witness testimony and documents, to impanel a grand jury and to file criminal charges.
And finally, we learned this tantalizing fact:
So Durham's shift from administrative review to criminal inquiry will be at least partially explained by the contents of Horowitz's report.  Intriguing.  Both investigations are important and justified.  Let's have the truth.  If there were abuses over the course of the Russia probe -- at its onset or beyond -- those responsible should be held accountable.  And any effort to paint all of this as pro-Trump hackery from Barr, the foundation for which has already been laid in the press, will run into the stubborn problem of the sterling nonpartisan reputations of the two men spearheading these parallel reviews.  

We know that some intelligence community figures are lawyering up.  We know that Horowitz has been very tough on James Comey and Andrew McCabe.  And we know that Durham's probe has expanded in scope, in addition to becoming criminal in nature.  It seems as though we are going to learn a lot more about what happened over the coming days and months.

Report: Bill Gates, Paris Hilton Travel Habits Produce 10,000 Times More CO2 Than Average Person

 Article by Joseph Vazquez in "NewsBusters":

High-profile liberals whine about the threats of climate change and humanity’s alleged role in causing it. However, they never fail to turn a blind eye to their own hypocrisy when their actions spew more carbon emissions into the atmosphere than the average person.

The Conversation reported Oct. 22 that “The jet-setting habits of Bill Gates and Paris Hilton mean that they produce an astonishing 10,000 times more carbon emissions from flying than the average person.”

The article’s author, Lund University Professor of Service Management and Service Studies Stefan Gössling, said that even this estimate was “conservative,” because most of the evidence he gathered was from mining Gates, Hilton and others’ social media accounts to find out where they were in the world in 2017 and how they got there. In essence, these celebrities “may well have taken more flights and not volunteered the information to their millions of followers.”

The average human emitted less than five tonnes of CO2 in 2018 overall, Gössling suggested. “In the case of air travel – the most energy-intensive human activity, no other human activity consumes as much energy in such a short time – the global average is 115kg CO2 per person per year.” However, the “vast majority of humanity never fly,” Gössling concluded.

Gössling found in particular “that Bill Gates, for example, causes at least 1,600 tonnes of CO2 to be emitted into the atmosphere – and this is from flying alone.” The top 10 percent in terms of wealth in the world are responsible for “half” of all carbon emissions across the globe, and yet “climate policies have so far tended to omit this issue of carbon inequality.”

Gössling said in his piece that “it’s increasingly looking like the climate crisis can’t be addressed while a small but growing group of super-emitters continue to increase their energy consumption and portray such lifestyles as desirable through their social media channels.”

Except that these celebrities are content living those lifestyles while trying to control what the rest of the population on earth does with its energy consumption habits.

Earlier this year, multiple celebrities, including former President Barack Obama, Leonardo Dicaprio, Prince Harry and Katy Perry, attended a Google Climate Summit in Italy in yachts and an estimated more than 110 private jets, which spewed approximately 100,000kg of CO2 into the air, only to whine about climate change.

100,000 kilograms of CO2 is the equivalent to approximately 109,323 pounds of coal burned or 244,499 miles driven by an average passenger vehicle, according to the Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies calculator. That’s like driving from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco almost 87 times.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/joseph-vazquez/2019/10/25/report-gates-hilton-travel-habits-produce-10k-times-more

 


Islamic State group: Europe has ticking time bomb in prison camps.

Like a bad movie where you've already seen the ending, history now risks repeating itself in a dangerous corner of the Middle East.
Kurdish-run camps and detention centres confining tens of thousands of Islamic State (IS) fighters and their dependants are boiling over with frustrated rage.
This month, spurred on by Turkey's incursion into Syria and encouraged by their fugitive leadership, they have vowed to break out and wreak revenge on both their captors and the West, reconstituting themselves as they did in 2013.
While Turkey's actions have undoubtedly propelled this problem into a crisis - in excess of 100 IS prisoners (some reports put the figure as high as 800) have reportedly escaped already and are now at large - the problem goes much deeper.

The fault lies primarily with Europe's governments. Since the military defeat of IS by the US-led coalition at Baghuz in Syria in March, the world has had seven months in which to resolve the issue of all these beaten jihadists and their often-fanatical dependants.
Most are from Syria and Iraq but both those countries are in varying states of upheaval and the recent sentencing to death by an Iraqi court of French jihadists has discouraged further transfers there.
The hard core of die-hard IS fighters and their dependants are nearly all from outside the region - Europe, North Africa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Recent reports from the largest camp, al-Hawl in north-east Syria, depict an ever-increasing takeover inside its walls by IS, including deadly punishments meted out by jihadist women. Children are growing up without any proper education and in some cases are being brainwashed with extreme and violent ideology.
"The people there (in these camps) are very extreme," said Michael Stephens from the London think tank Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
"If they escape or are allowed to keep raising children in these camps the problem in 10 years will be severe."
Washington and its Kurdish allies have been pressing Europe to take back the estimated 4,000 plus nationals who slipped unnoticed across its borders and into Syria when IS was at its height.

But Europe doesn't want them back. Its intelligence agencies warn that many of those who survived the final days of IS's last stand will remain highly dangerous radicals, brutalised by the atrocities they have witnessed, and in some cases, committed.
According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, German officials believe that a third of its nationals currently in the camps - a total of 27 men and women - are "capable of carrying out violent acts including terrorist attacks". This, it says, explains the German government's reluctance to bring them home.
The problem is two-fold. Firstly, there is a fear that if and when these jihadists were eventually brought to trial in their home countries there could well be insufficient evidence - given the fluid circumstances in which they were captured - to convict them.

Governments would then be accused of allowing back in dangerous men and women who would go free and then pose a potential risk to national security.
Secondly, even if they were convicted they would only add to the growing problem of violent radicalisation taking place in European jails, where a disproportionate percentage of the prison population - notably in France - are from Muslim communities.
So the net result is that Europe has failed to act and the problem has been left to fester. As well as dangerous jihadists, thousands of innocent women and children have been left in limbo in these camps where in some cases those who do not follow IS's draconian rules are getting either indoctrinated or punished.
 Ultimately, the problem comes down to this. Unless there is a secure and humane resolution to the issue of those thousands displaced by the collapse of the IS caliphate then this will be a ticking time bomb that Europe and other parts of the world will live to regret.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50179735

Powell Drops Bombshell Showing How The FBI Entrapped Michael Flynn



'Mr. Flynn will ask this Court to dismiss the entire prosecution based on the outrageous and un-American conduct of law enforcement officials and the subsequent failure of the prosecution to disclose this evidence.'

Earlier this week, Michael Flynn’s star attorney, Sidney Powell, filed under seal a brief in reply to federal prosecutors’ claims that they have already given Flynn’s defense team all the evidence they are required by law to provide. A minimally redacted copy of the reply brief has just been made public, and with it shocking details of the deep state’s plot to destroy Flynn.

While the briefing at issue concerns Powell’s motion to compel the government to hand over evidence required by Brady and presiding Judge Emmett Sullivan’s standing order, Powell’s 37-page brief pivots between showcasing the prosecution’s penchant for withholding evidence and exposing significant new evidence the defense team uncovered that establishes a concerted effort to entrap Flynn. Along the way, Powell drops half-a-dozen problems with Flynn’s plea and an equal number of justifications for outright dismissal of the criminal charges against Flynn.

What is most striking, though, is the timeline Powell pieced together from publicly reported text messages withheld from the defense team and excerpts from documents still sealed from public view. The sequence Powell lays out shows that a team of “high-ranking FBI officials orchestrated an ambush-interview of the new president’s National Security Advisor, not for the purpose of discovering any evidence of criminal activity—they already had tapes of all the relevant conversations about which they questioned Mr. Flynn—but for the purpose of trapping him into making statements they could allege as false.”

‘The Upper Echelon of the FBI Met to Orchestrate It All’

First came FBI agent Peter Strzok’s text to FBI attorney Lisa Page “as news of the ‘salacious and unverified’ allegations of the ‘Steele dossier’ dominated the media.” “Sitting with Bill watching CNN. A TON more out. . . We’re discussing whether, now that this is out, we can use it as a pretext to go interview some people,” Strzok told his paramour.

Then, quoting from a sealed statement by Strzok, Powell reveals that over next two weeks, there were “many meetings” between Strzok and [FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe to discuss “whether to interview [] National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and if so, what interview strategies to use.” And “on January 23, the day before the interview, the upper echelon of the FBI met to orchestrate it all. Deputy Director McCabe, General Counsel James Baker, Lisa Page, Strzok, David Bowdich, Trish Anderson, and Jen Boone strategized to talk with Mr. Flynn in such a way as to keep from alerting him from understanding that he was being interviewed in a criminal investigation of which he was the target.”

Next came “Comey’s direction to ‘screw it’ in contravention of longstanding DOJ protocols,” leading McCabe to personally call Flynn to schedule the interview. Yet none of Comey’s notes on the decision to interview Flynn were turned over to defense. Even Obama-holdover “Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates candidly opined that the interview ‘was problematic’ and ‘it was not always clear what the FBI was doing to investigate Flynn,” Powell stressed. Yet again, the prosecution did not turn over Yates’ notes, but only “disclosed a seven-line summary of Ms. Yates statement six months after Mr. Flynn’s plea.”

Following Strzok’s questioning of Flynn, he exchanged more texts with Page: “Describe the feeling, nervousness, excitement knowing we had just heard him denying it all. Knowing we’d have to pivot into asking. Puzzle round and round about it. Talk about the funny details. Remember what I said that made Andy laugh and ask if he really said that.”

The texts also confirmed Strzok did not believe Flynn thought he was lying: “Also have some faith in and my assessment. . . . I’m finding it hard to go out on a counterintuitive yet strongly felt ledge with so many competent voices expressing what I feel too: bullsh*t – that doesn’t make sense. [] I made some joke about what F said. Something patriotic or military.” Page responded: “It was clear that you both walked in and felt very strongly, so that obviously counts for something. [] You made a joke about a military band.”

A sealed statement from Strzok confirmed that the “agents did three briefings the day of the interview,” and that Strzok had reported that Flynn “had a sure demeanor, and he was telling the truth or believed he was—even though he did not remember it all.” This led the FBI and DOJ to then write “an internal memo dated January 30, 2017, exonerating Mr. Flynn of acting as an ‘agent of Russia’” and expressing no concern of a possible Logan Act violation.

Then the Switch on the 302

But then things change.

“On February 10, 2017, the news broke—attributed to ‘senior intelligence officials’—that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on television previously.” Following this leak, “overnight,” Flynn’s 302 was changed—and substantively so. “Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘FLYNN stated he did not’—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote.”

“This is a deceptive manipulation” Powell highlighted, “because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue. He had talked to dozens of countries.” The overnight changes to the 302 also included the addition of a line, indicating Flynn had been question on whether “KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request by FLYNN.”

But the agent’s notes do not include that question or answer, Powell stressed, yet it was later made into the criminal offense charges against Flynn. And “the draft also shows that the agents moved a sentence to make it seem to be an answer to a question it was not,” Powell added.

Then, the day after those changes were made, Strzok texted Page asking: “Also, is Andy good with F 302?” Page replied: “Launch f302.” Simultaneously, David Laufman in the National Security Division of DOJ, called Flynn’s law firm, Covington and Burling, to pressure them to file the FARA registration form for Flynn Intel Group. Those FARA registration forms would later be used to press Flynn to plead guilty.

Ties to Collusion against President Trump

The timeline continued to May 10 when McCabe opened an “obstruction” investigation into President Trump. That same day, Powell writes, “in an important but still wrongly redacted text, Strzok says: ‘We need to lock in [redacted]. In a formal chargeable way. Soon.’” Page replies: “I agree. I’ve been pushing and I’ll reemphasize with Bill [Priestap].”

Powell argues that “both from the space of the redaction, its timing, and other events, the defense strongly suspects the redacted name is Flynn.” That timing includes Robert Mueller’s appointment as special counsel on May 17, and then the reentering of Flynn’s 302 on May 31, 2017, “for Special Counsel Mueller to use.”

That final Flynn 302 shows yet another inconsistency from the notes turned over to Powell. Both agents’ notes state: “Flynn does not remember making four to five calls to Ambassador Kislyak from the Dominican Republic, where he was on vacation, but that if he did so, it was because phone service was poor and he kept getting dropped. ‘I don’t remember making 4-5 calls. If I did lousy place to call.’” Yet, Powell stressed, the final 302 stated the opposite: “Flynn remembered making four to five calls that day about this issue, but that the Dominican Republic was a difficult place to make a call as he kept having connectivity issues.”

Powell pieced together this timeline and this disturbing evidence of a government out to destroy a man only after Flynn pleaded guilty and without benefit of the exculpatory evidence the prosecution was required to provide. And that’s a problem, Powell argues: “Neither Mr. Flynn nor his former counsel had any of these documents or knowledge of the plethora of information discussed above when Mr. Flynn entered his plea.”
Federal prosecutors attempt to sidestep this problem by stressing that Flynn was represented by Covington and Burling, but that does not excuse the government’s withholding of evidence Judge Sullivan had ordered turned over, Powell stresses. As a backstop, Powell highlights that Covington and Burling had a conflict-of-interest that Flynn could not waive.

How Judge Sullivan will rule on Powell’s motion to compel and motion for sanctions is unclear. But as Powell said in the opening of her reply brief, she has “made clear from her first appearance, [that] Mr. Flynn will ask this Court to dismiss the entire prosecution based on the outrageous and un-American conduct of law enforcement officials and the subsequent failure of the prosecution to disclose this evidence— which it had in its possession all along—either in a timely fashion or at all.”