Middle East

Newt Gingrich joined Sean Hannity last night to tell it like it is. While the left cries about the inconvenience for a 100 or so foreigners  they ignore the inconvenience of those murdered by terrorists. Gingrich pointed this out with perfection.

He then went on to point out what should be absolutely obvious. We have a right to protect our own citizens.

A fantastic segment that should be watched and shared by all.

Pound sand isn’t an exact quote, of course, but that’s essentially what the Trump admin has to say to about 100 signers of a letter opposing Trump’s executive order on travelers coming from countries that export terrorism.

Click here for the full text of the letter.

Here’s what Trump’s spokesperson Sean Spicer had to say in response.

 “At some point if they have a big problem with the policies that he’s instituting to keep the country safe, then that’s up to them to question whether or not they want to stay or not.”

In other words, do your job or get out.

The dissent memo was signed by foreign service officers and diplomats, all of whom claim Trump’s executive order will not accomplish its goal of securing the nation. They argue, in fact, that it will “sour” relations overseas and breed more resentment towards the United States.

But one has to wonder, with all of the terror slamming the west from these nations, are they arguing for more of the same? Are they suggesting relationships are good? Are they claiming terrorists who already hate us might hate us more because we’re making what they do more difficult?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is waging war on Donald Trump’s policies designed to keep America safe. Schultz announced over the weekend that in the next five years his liberal coffee corporation will hire at least 10,000 refugees at stores around the world.

On the face of it such an announcement seems harmless and innocent, right? But in a memo Schultz published we see some glaring hypocrisy.

“We have a long history of hiring young people looking for opportunities and a pathway to a new life around the world,” Schultz wrote. “This is why we are doubling down on this commitment by working with our equity market employees as well as joint venture and licensed market partners in a concerted effort to welcome and seek opportunities for those fleeing war, violence, persecution and discrimination.”

What Shultz doesn’t mention is that he was a cheerleader for Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Yes, the same foreign policy that actually started many wars in the Middle East. The same Barack Obama that had the United States at war literally every day he was in office.

Barack Obama’s Middle East policies are exactly what caused much of the refugee crisis. Where was Schultz when Obama was bombing innocent people in the Middle East? Where was he when Obama’s policies devastated countries like Libya?

Does Shultz not understand that what Obama did in Libya is what created ISIS? The same ISIS that is now running rampant in the Middle East, causing the very refugee crisis Schultz is now playing PC tunes to?

See this is the problem with the liberal left. They champion big government policies that create crisis. Then they trot along trying to play the superhero with solutions they claim will solve the very crisis their policies created.

Hey Schultz, why don’t you join the side of Americans trying to prevent these kinds of crisis from ever happening in the first place? That way you wouldn’t have to play politics with your company and we wouldn’t have people running from wars.

Last night our news team burned the midnight oil to watch and track all of the protester activities happening in preparation for today’s Inauguration of Trump. While watching several of the live streams a very common theme was prominent among the voices of the losing party.

I say theme, but I mean narrative. Let’s look at three of the most common verbal charges heard last night.

  • Trump will go after the gays
  • Trump will bring about a new form of slavery
  • Trump will eliminate the rights of women

First of all, this is baseless, absurd and has no logical roots. There is absolutely zero evidence to support any of these charges. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the opposite.

But upon further thought it occurred to us that a vast range of the Muslim faith openly and blatantly supports these very positions. According to the Muslim faith, after all, being gay carries a penalty of death. And if you do not swear allegiance to Islam, you can most certainly be made a slave of those following the religion.

When it comes to women, there are no rights. Women cannot show their faces, can’t vote, can’t drive cars, can’t run for office and can’t do just about anything without authorization from a male member of the Islamic faith.

So this begs the question… if these protesters truly oppose anyone who supports less rights for gays, a new form of slavery and elimination of rights for women, where have they been for the past few decades when it comes to Islam? What about all of the gays, Christians and women in the Middle East? Do their lives not matter? Are they not important to these protesters?

With Trump there is no evidence he supports these positions. With Islam there is ample evidence, and they don’t even try to hide it.

Talk about misdirected dissent!

It’s time to put to rest the notion and myth perpetuated by the corporate media that Barack Obama had a “hands off” approach to the Syrian conflict. According to a Council on Foreign Relations estimate, Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs in 2016 — almost half of which fell in Syrian territory.

Last year, 12,192 bombs were dropped in Syria by Obama. Iraq came in a close second place with 12,095 bombs. Altogether, the peace prize-winning president dropped at least 26,171 bombs in seven countries throughout the last year.

By all means, these are conservative estimates regarding Obama’s use of force in the Middle East. As noted by Zenko and Wilson:

“In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,171 bombs in seven countries. This estimate is undoubtedly low, considering reliable data is only available for airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and a single ‘strike,’ according to the Pentagon’s definition, can involve multiple bombs or munitions. In 2016, the United States dropped 3,027 more bombs—and in one more country, Libya—than in 2015.”

This means the number of actual individual bombs dropped in Syrian territory may be much higher.

Despite this, the hawkish corporate media has continued to advance the claim that Obama has had a “hands off” approach to the Syrian conflict, presumably suggesting he could have taken the guns blazing approach that George W. Bush took in Iraq in 2003.

The only way the mainstream media can continue to claim Obama had a “hands-off” approach to the Syrian war is to ignore a number of glaring facts.

First, the United States helped instigate the Syrian civil war to begin with; its orchestration dates as far back as 2006. According to Wikileaks, the U.S. establishment wanted to provoke Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to overreact to the threat of violent extremists crossing the border into Syria, similar to what was done to Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s. A cable leaked by Wikileaks dated December 2006, authored by William Roebuck, at the time chargé d’affaires at the US embassy in Damascus stated:

“We believe Bashar’s weaknesses are in how he chooses to react to looming issues, both perceived and real, such as the conflict between economic reform steps (however limited) and entrenched, corrupt forces, the Kurdish question, and the potential threat to the regime from the increasing presence of transiting Islamist extremists. This cable summarizes our assessment of these vulnerabilities and suggests that there may be actions, statements, and signals that the USG can send that will improve the likelihood of such opportunities arising.” (emphasis added)

Secondly, under Obama’s administration, the United States has spent hundreds of millions of dollars arming and training Syrian rebels. However, the United States’ monetary contribution is not the only money that has flowed to the Syrian opposition, as Obama’s stalwart ally, Saudi Arabia, is responsible for providing most of the funding. The CIA delivers most of the training. Realistically, the U.S. spends about $1 billion a year aiding and assisting the rebels in Syria.

In 2014, PBS ran a report in which they interviewed Syrian rebels who were trained at a CIA training camping in Qatar. One of the fighters admitted they were being taught to finish off soldiers alive after an ambush – a potential war crime and ISIS’ standard operating procedure.

Further, the United States knew ISIS was a threat to the Assad regime, and according to a leaked audio of Secretary of State John Kerry, they hoped this would force him to negotiate with the Americans. This fell through, according to Kerry, when Russia stepped in and began bombing in Syria in the hopes of propping up Assad. A declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report also stated:

“The West, Gulf Countries and Turkey [Who] support the [Syrian] opposition…There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime…”

According to International Business Times, the U.S. spends about $11.5 million a day conducting operations in Syrian territory. Coupled with the findings above from the CFR that Syria was bombed the most heavily in 2016, it must be said that Obama’s approach to Syria is actually the most “hands-on” out of any country in the Middle East. Let’s not forget that these bombs actually targeted regime troops at one point, paving the way for a timely ISIS offensive.

Further, targeting these troops was no “accident.” Obama has been looking to bomb the Syrian regime for years now. In 2013, he vowed to punish Assad for alleged chemical weapons attacks, even when the evidence on both major attacks appeared to indicate that the Syrian rebels had been responsible for them (all the while these rebels still received support from Obama.) The proposed air strikes fell through as the United Kingdom’s parliament voted not to join the U.S.’ ambitions. Not only that, but Congress also looked set to join their British counterparts before Russia intervened quite convincingly to broker a diplomatic agreement.

In 2014, Obama found backdoor access into Syrian territory by purporting to bomb ISIS in Iraq, which would eventually lead them to bomb Syrian territory due to ISIS’ large Syrian component. Since then, he has clearly not been holding back on dropping ammunitions in Syria, despite the fact he has no cause for self-defense against Syria and has no UN Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Syrian territory – the only legal means in which another country can wage war against a sovereign nation.

It realistically cannot be realistically said that Obama has taken a “hands off” approach to Syria. If anything, the peace prize-winning president only had a “hands off” approach to fighting ISIS directly on numerous occasions, sitting back and watching as the terror group forcibly took a number of strategic cities in Iraq and Syria. However, one could make the argument that this was all part of a broader strategy to force Assad’s removal, as indicated by John Kerry’s leaked audios.

By these standards, George W. Bush also had a “hands off” approach to the Iraq war in 2003.

Story originally appears at AntiMedia.

CNN host Alisyn Camerota is yet another name now piling on to the insanity currently driving CNN’s general overall narrative. In a segment aimed to victimize Muslim women who say they find it difficult to safely wear a hijab in public, Camerota actually called for non-Muslim Americans to wear a hijab to show solidarity.

“Maybe there will be a movement where people wear the head scarf in solidarity. You know, even if you’re not Muslim,” said Camerota during the segment.

Of course, to the average low information viewer of CNN such a statement implies anyone who wouldn’t throw on a hijab does not support the concerns expressed in the segment. Why on earth would someone who isn’t Muslim need to dress and act like a Muslim in order to oppose harassment?

Furthermore, the story ads fuel to a fire that doesn’t need to be burning. Sure, there are probably instances of Muslim women being somewhat harassed in public. But there are instances of every walk, look, race, religion, political position being harassed in public.

Here’s a question. Will Camerota call for non-Trump supporters to wear Trump hats to show solidarity with Trump supporters who have been ruthlessly beaten for simply voting for Trump?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Segment below.

One final set of thoughts before you go out to vote today.

There’s one major issue that got very little play during the campaign, as the media was hell-bent on focusing on Trump and bad words.

If we all burn, that is on them — and you.  But I assure you the press will fry up just like you will at 5,000 degrees.

That issue is Syria.

Hillary Clinton has committed herself to imposing a “no fly” zone over Syria.  As I have pointed out on multiple occasions in this column there are two problems with that commitment.

First, the Russians are in there at Syria’s invitation.  They’re protecting Syria’s government at its request, exactly as we protected Kuwait at its request.  They are therefore acting with the permission of the sovereign government of Syria, and we will not be.  We will effectively be invading Syria.

Second, Russia has missile systems deployed in Syria that we cannot reliably kill, and our aircraft and other flying equipment cannot reliably survive being fired upon by them either.  While we can certainly find some of their batteries through intelligence and similar, and blow them up, doing so would be a clear act of war.  If we do not do so then anything Russia does not want flying in the skies over Syria will not be flying.  It will instead be in many pieces and any airmen inside said aircraft will be dead.

Will Russia allow us to dictate that there will be a no-fly zone and allow us to enforce it?

I doubt it.

If we attempt to implement one anyway then conflict is inevitable.  This is a conflict that has not happened thus far in the nuclear age between superpowers.  Oh sure, there’s been a plane forced down here and one shot down there, along with plenty of harassment, along with various proxy wars where this party or that was supplying arms to one side or the other (e.g. Afghanistan) but an actual face-off and exchange between US and Russian forces has never occurred.

Once it happens, if it does, then someone will of course believe they “won” and someone will believe they “lost.”  The question will then be whether the side who believes it “lost” will admit to that and withdraw.

If that side does not do so then we are facing nuclear war – a war that inherently involves the destruction of both nation’s infrastructure and large percentages of their respective populations.

Hillary Clinton has said she intends to walk this path.  We do not know whether Trump will; he hasn’t committed himself one way or the other.  But his statements thus far tend to lead me, and many others, to believe he won’t try to interfere in Syria’s (or anyone else’s) sovereign affairs.  In fact he’s made clear that he believes that we have had far too many foreign entanglements and they have not served us well.

There’s no guarantee that a President Trump would not find some reason to intervene, of course, and thus no guarantee that we don’t ultimately wind up in the same place.  Let’s face it — Syria is a mess, and one that Hillary Clinton had a large hand in creating.

But the choice here is between someone who might get pressed into a situation that leads to armed conflict, possibly nuclear conflict, and someone who has a vested interest in continuing what she started, who has declared her intent to take an action that by definition will violate Syria’s sovereignty and, with near-certainty will lead to an exchange of weapons between the Syrian protectors, which are Russian, and the United States.

That road has a high probability of being one way and at the end are events you will not like.

Don’t vote to die — and kill your children.

If you vote for Hillary you are in fact voting for nuclear war.

Originally posted at Market Ticker.

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Remember those infamous and wretched words? Of course you do. We all do. Those were the words uttered by Hillary Clinton when she was desperately trying to spin her way through a committee hearing on Benghazi.

And as anyone not named Hillary Clinton or anyone not on her corrupt payroll knows, it makes a lot of difference. This because Americans died. They died at the hands of terrorists on Hillary’s watch.

New information is now out about some of the individuals who were paid to guard/protect state department employees at the special missions compound where the terrorist attack occurred and it’s not pretty. Turns out Hillary’s state department spent $9.2 million on a contract for guards, many of whom turned out to be the very terrorists who attacked the compound, killing our ambassador and other Americans in the process.

Via Fox News.

“Many of the local Libyans who attacked the consulate on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, were the actual guards that the State Department under Hillary Clinton hired to protect the Consulate in Benghazi,” Tiegen told Fox News. “The guards were unvetted and were locals with basically no background at all in providing security. Most of them never had held a job in security in the past.

“Blue Mountain Libya, at the time of being awarded the contract by our State Department, had no employees so they quickly had to find people to work, regardless of their backgrounds,” he said.

One former guard who witnessed the attack, Weeam Mohamed, confirmed in an email sent to the Citizens Commission on Benghazi and obtained by Fox News, that at least four of the guards hired by Blue Mountain took part in the attack after opening doors to allow their confederates in.

“In the U.S. Mission, there were four people [who] belonged to the battalion February 17,” Mohamed wrote to the Commission, an independent body formed with Accuracy in Media to investigate the attack and the administration’s handling of it.

Again, it makes a lot of difference.

The west is being overwhelmed with Muslim refugees at a time when the west cannot afford such an invasion. Not financially, socially, culturally or politically. This as a result of Hillary and Obama’s seemingly endless war in the Middle East and our government’s refusal to put a stop to the overwhelming influx coming our way.

Is the influx about to slow down? Not at all. In fact, according to the United Nations the surge is about to explode to nation crippling numbers.

Indeed, the United Nations is saying another 200,000 refugees should be expected as a result of war in Iraq. And those numbers could go north of a million.

Via FT.

UN humanitarian chief Stephen O’Brien said on Wednesday that up to 1.5m people in Mosul were at risk of being targeted, caught in crossfire, forcibly expelled or used as human shields during the operation.

Mr O’Brien said the UN anticipated “a displacement wave of some 200,000 people over the coming weeks, with up to one million displaced in the course of the operation in a worst-case scenario.”

Meanwhile, if Donald Trump is not elected President the decision on refugees will be left to Hillary Clinton and her ally Paul Ryan in the house. A duo that has in no way proven a desire to put a stop to it.

Business Executive Paul Nehlen, the firebrand candidate who quickly rose to national prominence by forcing Paul Ryan to spend nearly $10,000,000 defending his seat in Wisconsin, is out with a project that is certain to turn more heads. Nehlen announced in email that he’s finishing up filming a feature length documentary called Hijrah, a movie that he says will expose the true story behind the current flood of refugees slamming the west.

Nehlen made many within Ryan’s establishment circles squirm when he openly joined Donald Trump in calling for a halt to all immigration from Muslim countries until it can be confirmed there is a viable way to do proper security checks. He was attacked from both the left and Ryan’s establishment allies, but never once showed a desire to back down.

The new documentary shows he’s still not backing down, but instead stepping up his efforts to help expose what’s really going on. Nehlen responded to a request for comment saying:

The media will lead you to believe questioning the intent of Islam’s migration is Islamophobic in a bad way. Don’t you owe it to yourself to investigate the texts and context upon which this migration is founded? We will shine the light of truth on what’s happening globally and locally in your towns all across America. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. We will give you tools and encourage you to fight for America at all levels of government.

The film has a website up at HijrahMovie.com and you can click here for a page with the trailer.

From the website.

Business Executive Paul Nehlen takes on the media, the political establishment and the PC crowd in this groundbreaking epic documentary. The film exposes the mass Muslim refugee import situation for exactly what it is… cover for radical Islamic Hijrah.

Those entrusted with giving us information about dangers our nation and her citizens face refuse to show us the truth. Even worse, they’re all a part of it. The media hides the truth while our own government funds and provides assistance for a massive, nearly uncontrollable radical Muslim invasion of the west.

The first stage is to understand what the problem is, how big it is and how it will affect our lives. Then we must prepare for the worst while fighting for the best possible outcome.

Hijrah takes viewers on a journey of exploration, history, special interviews, investigative reports and more in a gripping full feature documentary style setting. This is a must have movie for any American concerned about the future of our nation.

The trailer is below.