|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 6, 2020 17:08:15 GMT -6
Funny how the Iranian apologists overlook this:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 6, 2020 17:11:26 GMT -6
Funny how things change when one hates the President. Joe Biden back in 1996:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 6, 2020 17:17:55 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/01/06/kassam-obama-drone-trump/KASSAM: Democrats Supported Obama Killing Americans With Drones, But Take Issue With Trump Killing Terrorists War with Iran is unavoidable, at least according to the media. Democrats have been wringing their hands over Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani’s death, with some calling it a “war crime” and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seeking to restrict the president’s powers. But what did Democrats say when President Obama used his executive powers to strike (and kill) U.S. citizens in Yemen in 2011, including a 16-year-old boy? Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Mark Udall of Colorado, and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico said in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that the use of force was “legitimate use of the authority granted to the president.” They said Obama had met the legal standard. These three senators were part of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. They went on to describe the killing of terror leader Anwar al-Awlaki: Mr. al-Aulaqi [sic] clearly made a conscious decision to join an organized fighting force that was (and is) engaged in planning and carrying out attacks against the United States,” the senators wrote. “By taking on a leadership role in this organization, involving himself in ongoing operational planning against the United States, and demonstrating the capacity and intent to carry out these operations, he made himself a legitimate target for military action. Does the same rationale apply to Soleimani? Or has it suddenly changed? After all, Soleimani was the head of the Quds Force, recently designated a terrorist organization by the United States government. (RELATED: KASSAM: The Senate Impeachment Trial Will Become Pelosi’s Nightmare) Additionally, a Justice Department memo released in 2014 led to this report from the New York Times: Intelligence officials had concluded that Awlaki was an operational terrorist leader who had gone overseas, become part of Al Qaeda or an associated force, and was “engaged in continual planning and direction of attacks” on Americans. His capture was not feasible, the memo said. Working from that premise, David Barron, then the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that it would be lawful for the government to kill Awlaki, notwithstanding federal statutes against murdering Americans overseas and protections in the Constitution against unreasonable seizures and depriving someone of life without due process of law. “We do not believe al-Awlaki’s citizenship provides a basis for concluding that he is immune from a use of force abroad” as otherwise congressionally authorized to use against Al Qaeda, Barron wrote, addressing the memo to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Asked about the killing of Awlaki’s son a few weeks after the initial strike, Obama White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs glibly replied about the drone strike on another U.S. citizen deemed to be a threat: “I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children. I don’t think becoming an al Qaeda jihadist terrorist is the best way to go about doing your business.” Politico also explained how the Democrats used the killing of Bin Laden and Awlaki as part of their reelection strategy, with the headline of one story reading, “Al-Awlaki’s killing bolsters Obama.” The story asserted: The killing of Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki — just months after the killing of Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden — appears to eliminate the war on terror as a campaign issue for Republicans in the 2012 election and could even give President Barack Obama an unlikely advantage on national security, Democrats said Friday. It’s remarkable that the president has, in many ways, taken national security off the table as an issue altogether,” Democratic operative and former White House spokesman Bill Burton said on MSNBC. “I don’t think a lot of folks would have thought three years ago that, at this point of the presidential race, President Obama would be sort of untouchable when it comes to national security.” “His main platform should be, ‘I protected America from terrorists,’ and he should cite the death of the two terrorists and that he was brave and determined to make it happen, and he did,” said Bill Richardson, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who, like Obama, ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008. “He should run on foreign policy, easing tensions around the world, America regaining its respect abroad, and homeland security and terrorism. That’s what should be his main campaign address.” It’s clear the media and Democrats have different standards for Obama than they do for Trump. That’s been clear for a while. The Trump administration should seize on the words of Democrats, diplomats, and the media to provide the rationale for the killing of a man who ISN’T a U.S. citizen (Soleimani) and has been on the terror list for some time. Soleimani’s long history of pulling together attacks such as Benghazi, hundreds of deaths of Americans and others in the region, as well as the most recent attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad is all the rationale President Trump needed. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 6, 2020 17:24:53 GMT -6
So, Schiff wants more hearings: www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/06/adam-schiff-demands-public-hearings-on-soleimani-strike/House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who lead secret impeachment hearings against President Trump, is now calling on Congress to hold public hearings on the U.S.’s decision to launch the deadly airstrike that killed top Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani. “I think there should be open hearings on this subject,” Schiff told the Washington Post in an interview published Monday. “The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran. That requires the Congress to fully engage.” Asked for his thoughts on President Trump warning Iran that the U.S. will hit 52 sites, including cultural sites, if Tehran retaliates the California Democrat said: “None of that could come out of the Pentagon. Absolutely On Saturday evening, President Trump said the 52 Iranian sites “will be hit very fast and very hard” if Tehran strikes back at U.S. citizens or assets. “Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters,” the president tweeted. “He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years.”
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jan 6, 2020 22:11:56 GMT -6
So, Schiff wants more hearings: www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/06/adam-schiff-demands-public-hearings-on-soleimani-strike/House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who lead secret impeachment hearings against President Trump, is now calling on Congress to hold public hearings on the U.S.’s decision to launch the deadly airstrike that killed top Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani. “I think there should be open hearings on this subject,” Schiff told the Washington Post in an interview published Monday. “The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran. That requires the Congress to fully engage.” Asked for his thoughts on President Trump warning Iran that the U.S. will hit 52 sites, including cultural sites, if Tehran retaliates the California Democrat said: “None of that could come out of the Pentagon. Absolutely On Saturday evening, President Trump said the 52 Iranian sites “will be hit very fast and very hard” if Tehran strikes back at U.S. citizens or assets. “Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters,” the president tweeted. “He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years.” This will never end. It's always going to be something. The GOP has to take back the House.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 6:12:29 GMT -6
Ignored by the Iranian loving MSM & Democrats :
The regime was serving dinners to people who came out to the funeral.
Not everyone was fooled.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 7:23:05 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2020/01/06/secret-service-aware-george-lopez-threat/Secret Service ‘Aware’ Of George Lopez’s Threat Against Trump The United States Secret Service is “aware” of an Instagram post from comedian George Lopez that many perceived as a threat on President Donald Trump’s life. “The Secret Service is aware of the [post] made by Mr. Lopez,” a U.S. Secret Service representative told the Daily Caller via a statement. “The Secret Service takes all threats against the President and or any of our protectees seriously, and as a matter of practice, we do not comment on matters involving protective intelligence.” Lopez made the post Sunday night in response to a Chicano World Star post about a eulogist who called for an $80 million bounty on Trump’s head during the funeral of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, killed Thursday near a Baghdad airport by a U.S. drone strike. “We’ll do it for half,” the comedian wrote, leading many to wonder if the detail in charge of protecting the president was aware of the statement. (RELATED: Kathy Griffin Defends ‘Beheading’ Trump Photo – Says She Did Not Use Real Human Head Or Blood) “We are 80 million Iranians, if each one of us puts aside one American dollar, we will have 80 million American dollars, and we will reward anyone who brings us [Trump]’s head with that amount,” the eulogist said. Although it appeared on Iranian state TV, it was unclear whether Iran’s government condoned the statement. However, an Iranian parliament member threatened to “attack the White House itself” in response to the general’s killing.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 7:26:00 GMT -6
traffic.outbrain.com/network/redir?p=AJsMku9_gR3JOlA5PqlxIQPcbAaZBxkOMDty6BMnJTxMG031xuJ-pXOHZHOgUJ5-fKb0TQWAMCImbuw-6VtFeBLW5h_dLfExZHBfsCTlkjQpW1oge70iexNmrVN-qQ7nHEbN8ydkx9HzVEyorBCzCmgO_8hh3o62dO7Sswlf3sdNgo-lNNrGUszCr80Fqb_coeZc9U-LE5Gw1RvcAXKyBKbTQs2ieMLaSz8N5vQKeTHz4LtADOLly3DAu5iJDvZc9u6hrk9sMDKhchuj79P8eKiqh_phADDfhZS01duprysVrBdZ9eFaMi56kyBbaUHzfmQQoxU5KJ_0yfkW4iQQPgEmUOhCGOQ5RELFk_YVJD0HP3ZRSMl_6ABA6wW0ZzFSr3hzqOPUyhupBpZvIcYr0CSnLOx1UV8A7cu2GYfQ4-SJ5x0SaGGM7f8l3r-IM_sRB8b0RT_032d0aTI9DtGW3x4Fnv72wQVtpgTIQMd0XwwtML-Hrt7XPRXT4hoXireh5YNWEuz18_f7U3QFFijw3ss5rt9FsgJDANSX13Ij7Gu-4ATF-mZBFlzwzlkB7DimILUNVDQTp0jLvt-vRq9nxzCpyPMIFtYrb6b0MxWOyV8eaNKABbKdtvXhL5g4cqYbHDAbSm8aKF2gwFVUHcCnJF-Gdq29pO8cFe57ATsZyQ5bdnBnlebquBVgIRd7vTtzeCIyFzWNG0b8F7s5655xV8P68JIrYBedwjp-lpbF3koJBJe00fMK9MGZI77CMZMo27Tk2UEU9wwlL80xeL_kaFFzZxii1DDMD7wiRBZ3I2fVeigBSEFL6r2qOKIYVanl_irGWCqOBzOEDRAayFkmxj4V11Tzmk1bXjWVznEP9hHuQQegkdMkGZe2s4LOShWyKYYR9awby0QsAK50axlwP-S_y8ItNip3CP_P6g76u0EaGV1RiL8dehqfUzZhOUmpAPweArH9QlaCtbLMpYtQCA&c=91ffcf10&v=3Former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick weighed in on the U.S. drone strike that killed former Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani, tweeting Saturday afternoon that “American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism” is “nothing new.” America has always sanctioned and besieged Black and Brown bodies both at home and abroad,” he added. “America militarism is the weapon wielded by American imperialism, to enforce its policing and plundering of the non white world.” While Pentagon officials and President Donald Trump himself insisted that the strike against the Quds general, killed outside a Baghdad airport on Thursday, was meant to deter imminent attacks on U.S. personnel and diplomats, some on all sides have reasonably questioned the overall strategy. Others took things to a whole other level, like Hollywood actress Rose McGowan, who apologized to Iran and begged them not to “kill us.” “Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize,” McGowan tweeted Friday morning. “We want peace with your nation. We are being held hostage by a terrorist regime. We do not know how to escape. Please do not kill us. #Soleimani.” (RELATED: Tucker Carlson Blasts Neocon ‘Non-Geniuses Like Max Boot And John Bolton,’ Makes The Case Against War With Iran) Here’s a sampling of reactions to the former national anthem kneeler’s tweet, many of which pointed out the fact that the “brown” person he was commemorating actually killed more than his share of “black and brown” people all over the region. Am fearful you have CTE but that typically only impacts players who saw game time. t.co/3yIjcRfxiS— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) January 4, 2020 You can leave anytime t.co/WFXDNRIjzI— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) January 4, 2020 Qassem Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans who were black and brown. cc @nike t.co/xpbllFuZZ8— Ben Domenech (@bdomenech) January 4, 2020 Siding with an Iranian Islamic terrorist who’s killed hundreds Americans, injured untold numbers more, and from a country that’s anything but progressive to trash America? Disgusting and unsurprising. So you’re….pro-terrorism? t.co/EKxFnr2KLx— Curtis Houck (@curtishouck) January 4, 2020 Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani killed thousands upon thousands of black and brown people through out the Middle East The United States put an end to his murdering t.co/7jefx4XtQq— Ryan Saavedra (@realsaavedra) January 4, 2020 Speaking of imperialism, how are the sales of your sweatshop shoe? t.co/EBE6AKA7As— ?’ ? ? ? ? (@becketadams) January 4, 2020 And it’s on. Genius commentary from a guy whose only war experience includes social justice and who managed to screw up his own tryout because of his inflated ego. Hey @kaepernick7 you should see if Iran will start a team for you. About the only way you’re ever playing again. t.co/YuO7MH8B45— Matthew Betley (@matthewbetley) January 4, 2020 Soleimani oversaw the murder, starvation, displacement, detention and torture of millions of brown Syrians and Iraqis. t.co/NrQIRw3van— Elizabeth Tsurkov (@elizrael) January 4, 2020
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 7:27:44 GMT -6
Lopez "clarifies" his statement by saying he was only "joking": www.dailywire.com/news/george-lopez-responds-to-backlash-after-offering-to-kill-trump-for-iran-i-was-jokingGeorge Lopez Responds To Backlash After Offering To Kill Trump For Iran: I Was Joking In response to the mounting backlash on social media after he offered to kill President Trump in honor of Iran’s alleged bounty on his head, comedian George Lopez has now clarified that he was just joking. On Sunday, Lopez responded to an Instagram post announcing that Iran had placed an $80 million bounty on Trump’s head following the death of Gen. Qassem Soleimani. “Iranian authorities have put a bounty on American President Donald Trump’s head during the televised funeral of General #QasemSoleimani after he was assassinated last week. What are your thoughts?” the post said. George Lopez later said, “We’ll do it for half.” According to Fox News, when reached for comment, a representative for Lopez said the irreverent remark was simply “a joke” and should not be taken literally. Immediately after the comment went viral, George Lopez’s name began trending on social media as well as the phrase “arrest George Lopez,” with many Twitter users calling for the Secret Service to investigate him. “Although many were upset, others were quick to defend the star’s comment and noted that it’s very similar to a past remark made by singer Ted Nugent in 2012, which was investigated by the Secret Service,” reports Fox News. “The singer publicly told President Barack Obama to ‘suck on my machine gun,’ prompting outrage from the left. The authorities investigated Nugent over the comment but eventually deemed the issue resolved with no further action being taken.” Below are just a few of the reactions to Lopez’s comment: Did u just offer a Bounty for the killing of our President? I hope u are investigated. Terrorist act. You should go to prison for that comment. Do u realize the magnitude of your statement? That is a threat to the POTUS. I don’t give a F if you are a comedian or not. You have to be held accountable for what you are saying on a social platform! I really hope u are arrested. On Twitter, several prominent conservatives expressed outrage for Lopez’s comment, noting his history of expressing antipathy for President Trump and his supporters. “This is your daily reminder that if someone said they would comply with a terrorist regime’s bounty on Obama’s head they would be in custody right now. But when George Lopez offers to assassinate President Trump for 40 million dollars—media silence & zero accountability,” tweeted TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk. “Did you know: George Lopez was charged with Battery after fighting a Trump supporter in New Mexico Now he’s threatening to assassinate the president on Instagram This sounds like a credible threat to me based on his previous actions Will he be held accountable?” “It’s time for Secret Service to pay George Lopez a visit!” tweeted Diamond & Silk. “John Wilkes Booth was a famous actor too. it is time to start paying attention to threats from people like George Lopez,” tweeted Carmine Sabia. As noted by Fox News, Lopez previously “used a water bottle to simulate urinating on Trump’s Hollywood Walk of Fame star, noted that the president’s kids could be considered “anchor babies,” mocked Trump’s reported $50,000 golf simulator and was charged after he got into a slight physical altercation with a Trump supporter at a Hooters.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 7:30:19 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/watch-american-mainstream-media-mourns-death-of-iran-terrorist-leaderWATCH: American Mainstream Media Mourns Death Of Iran Terrorist Leader On Monday, Grabien founder Tom Elliott released a new video montage that showed many in the American mainstream media idolizing and mourning terrorist Qassim Suleimani, leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s Quds Force, after he was killed by American forces last week in Iraq. Suleimani’s funeral was this week after the terrorist leader was killed last week in a Trump-authorized drone strike by the U.S. military on a convoy that he was riding in as he left Baghdad International Airport. WATCH: Transcript of the highlight video provided by Grabien News: news.grabien.com/story-montage-media-mourn-loss-iranian-terror-leaderCBS’s Holly Williams described him as a “revered figure” and a “war hero.” “He wasn’t well-known in the United States, but he was one of the most powerful figures in the Middle East, sometimes even touted as a possible future leader of Iran.” “For America, though, General Suleimani was a problem.” “Even many of Soleimani’s enemies admitted he was a military genius. He spearheaded Iran’s involvement in a Syrian Civil War hoping to shore up the Syrian regime’s grip on power. … By killing Qasem Suleimani, the U.S. has stripped Iran of an inspirational military leader. But it’s also further inflamed dangerously high tensions. Iran has already vowed to take, quote, harsh revenge.” CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said Suleimani was “revered” in Iran: “Imagine the French Foreign Legion, at the height of the French empire. This guy is regarded in Iran as a completely heroic figure, personally very brave.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper, likened Suleimani to the World War II leader, Charles DeGaulle, calling him “personally incredibly brave” and reporting that “the troops love him.” CBS’s National Security Contributor Michael Morell praised Suleimani’s military prowess, calling him an “evil genius.” ABC’s Martha Raddatz — reporting from Iran in a headscarf — appeared awestruck at the display: “I have been in the midst of anti-America protests in Iran before, but nothing like this. A powerful combination of grief and anger with shouts of ‘death to America’ echoing through the streets around us. This morning, mourners filling the streets of Iran’s capital of Tehran for the funeral of General Suleimani killed by that U.S. drone strike last week. Aerial images capturing the sea of Iranians packing the streets to pay tribute to a man revered by many here.” NBC’s Richard Engel, also reporting from Iran, said the United States had elevated the terror mastermind into martyr status: “Now, after this killing, you saw people not only going out in the streets in millions, as Ali was describing, he was there, but throwing articles of their own clothing up onto the coffin so that attendants could rub it on the coffin so that they would have some sort of memento of an object that was close to Qassim Suleimani’s body. They turned him into a martyr, if not a saint. And we’re seeing now all around the region Shiite groups, allies of Iran speaking in one voice, and that is that U.S. troops have to leave the region, should be forced out of the region starting with Iraq.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 7:49:44 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2020/01/06/klein-nancy-pelosi-celebrated-killing-of-gaddafi-slams-trump-for-eliminating-soleimani/Klein: Nancy Pelosi Celebrated Killing of Gaddafi, Slams Trump for Eliminating Soleimani JERUSALEM — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slammed President Trump’s decision to target arch Iranian terrorist Qassem Soleimani as “provocative and disproportionate” and announced the House will soon vote on a resolution to limit Trump’s war powers. Rewind nine years. On October 20, 2011, an excited Pelosi released a statement celebrating the death of Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi during the Obama administration’s U.S.-led NATO operation targeting Gaddafi’s government. Back then, Pelosi did not seek legislation to limit Obama’s war powers during the seven month Libya conflict even though there was no imminent threat against America in that country at the time. Unlike Soleimani, who was reportedly plotting an immediate attack on Americans, there was no information that Gaddafi was directly threatening the U.S. at the time of his death. Gaddafi was an extremist with anti-American views who was involved in terrorist bombings in the 1980s but he was not considered an immediate danger to America when he was killed in 2011 during the so-called Arab Spring. There is no information the U.S. was directly involved in death of Gaddafi, but the strongman was killed as a result of the U.S.-led NATO invasion in Libya. Pelosi hailed the killing just after news broke of Gaddafi’s October 2011 death. She released the following statement on her Congressional website: Today’s news marks the next phase of Libya’s march toward democracy. After decades of tyrannical rule in Libya, the world is hopeful that the next generation of Libyan leaders will bring their country out of this dark chapter. The strong action taken by the United States, led by President Obama, and NATO, the United Nations and the Arab League proves the power of the world community working together. Pelosi further supported the Obama White House’s military actions in Libya but also called for continued consultation between the president and Congress on the matter. The Democrats largely backed Obama on Libya. This even though Obama bypassed Congress to commit the U.S. to NATO’s seven month operation in Libya aimed at regime change without any pressing national security justification. As a result of the U.S.-led NATO intervention, Libya was left in tatters with an instable government and a witch’s brew of rebels competing for cantons of territory in the country. Libya became a failed state and many analysts say that helped lead to the spread of the Islamic State. As this reporter documented at the time, the U.S.-NATO campaign resulted in the largest terrorist looting of Man-Portable-Air-Defense-Systems, or MANPADS, with those weapons reportedly being proliferated around the Middle East. I previously reported: Gaddafi had hoarded Africa’s biggest-known reserve of MANPADS, with a stock said to number between 15,000 and 20,000. Many of the missiles were stolen by militias fighting in Libya, including those backed by the U.S. in their anti-Gaddafi efforts. There were reports of a Western effort to secure the MANPADS, including collecting some from rebels in Libya. Let’s contrast Pelosi’s celebration of Gaddafi’s death and her support for Obama’s extended military campaign in Libya to the House Speaker’s furious response to Trump’s decision to eliminate Soleimani. The U.S. took out Soleimani after Iran-backed militias crossed all red lines with last week’s organized assault on the U.S. embassy in Iraq. Failing to swiftly and strongly respond would have signaled that Iran could get away with future attacks on America. Unlike the Libya war, where there was no immediate threat, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explained Soleimani was terminated to disrupt an “imminent attack” he was planning that would have endangered the lives of Americans. “He was actively plotting in the region to take actions – a big action as he described it — that would have put dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk. We know it was imminent,” Pompeo told CNN. “These were threats that were located in the region,” Pompeo added. “Last night was the time that we needed to strike to make sure that this imminent attack … was disrupted.” Soleimani was responsible for plotting deadly attacks on Americans. He commanded the al-Quds force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, where he oversaw a vast terrorist apparatus for Iran — the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism. He essentially controlled Hezbollah and supervised the expansion of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and jihadist militias in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the Gaza Strip and West Bank. This reporter referred to Soleimani as the “Osama bin Laden of the Shiite world.” Instead of hailing Soleimani’s death a watershed moment for the war on terror, Pelosi characterized the elimination of Soleimani thusly: “Last week, the Trump administration conducted a provocative and disproportionate military airstrike targeting high-level Iranian military officials.” “This action endangered our service members, diplomats and others by risking a serious escalation of tensions with Iran,” she wrote while ignoring Pompeo’s remarks that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans. While essentially giving Obama cart blanch to launch a seven month war in Libya, Pelosi wont give Trump more than 30 days for actions targeting Iran, perhaps the most dangerous threat to the free world. Pelosi explained her House resolution: “It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days.” What a far cry from the war hungry Pelosi of 2011. “The United States has and will continue to work with the Libyan people to achieve their aspirations for freedom, a democratic government and the rule of law,” Pelosi said in her October 2011 statement supporting further U.S. action in Libya.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 7:50:45 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/01/06/flashback-obama-bombed-countries-went-to-war-used-kill-list-without-congress/Flashback: Obama Bombed Countries, Went to War, Used ‘Kill List’ without Congress Democrats plan to pass a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives this week declaring that President Donald Trump violated international law with last week’s airstrike against terrorist Iranian General Qasem Suleimani. Their bill will also reduce the president’s power to conduct hostilities without congressional approval from 60 days, under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, to 30 days. Some Democrats have proposed defunding any hostilities with Iran. But few Democrats raised objections when President Barack Obama went to war — often exceeding the boundaries of his legal authority as president. The most notorious case was the Libya War, which President Obama launched in March 2011 without congressional authorization. He continued the war effort beyond the War Powers Resolution’s deadlines because, the administration argued, the U.S. was not engaged in “hostilities” but “leading from behind.” Breitbart TV Play Video CLICK TO PLAY Sen. Kaine: 'Presidents Cannot Start Wars Without Congress' Some on the left bent over backwards to defend Obama’s unconstitutional war. Former Yale Law School dean Harold Koh was once “one of the country’s foremost defenders of the notion that the president of the United States can’t wage wars without the approval of Congress,” the New York Times noted, but later became “the administration’s defender of the right to stay engaged in a conflict against Libya without Congressional approval.” Later, when Obama was mulling military action against Syria, an administration that came to power by arguing that the Iraq War had been waged “without strong international support” argued that war against Syria would have been justified even without the backing of the United Nations Security Council because there was no way to win Russian support regardless, and because the threat of weapons of mass destruction against civilians was dire. Few objected. Obama later abandoned that plan, but he did bomb Syria during the campaign against the so-called “Islamic State” (or ISIS, which he called “ISIL”). He also dropped “26,171 bombs” on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan in 2016 alone, according to the Council on Foreign Relations — often for reasons tangentially related to the 9/11-era Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). And in 2012, the Obama White House leaked to the Times that in addition to killing Osama bin Laden, he personally oversaw a terrorist “kill list.” Few protested, other than Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), the former mounting a filibuster to protest the use of drones against U.S. citizens — including in the hypothetical example that they would be used in the United States. So for Democrats to declare that Trump’s successful strike on Suleimani was “provocative and disproportionate” — terms that virtually welcome the intervention of the non-recognized International Criminal Court — is worse than hypocrisy. It is putting party ahead of country. Democrats would rather lose a war with Iran than win with Trump.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 7:52:05 GMT -6
thefederalist.com/2020/01/07/media-coverage-of-iraq-is-a-case-study-of-ignorance-and-manipulation/Media Coverage Of Iraq Is A Case Study Of Ignorance And Manipulation 'Repercussions mount over U.S. strike, with Iran nuclear deal pullback and Iraq call for U.S. troop pullout,' the Los Angeles Times tells us, waiting 14 paragraphs to explain the resolution is not binding. Christopher BedfordBy Christopher Bedford JANUARY 7, 2020 Millions of casual news consumers began their week believing that over the weekend, Iraq expelled the U.S. military from the country. The United States, they thought, now faced the decision to quickly leave or illegally occupy. Had they flicked through many of the cable or network stations, or read a few headlines on their phones or at the gas station, these Americans had heard the president’s decision to kill the general of Iran’s elite Quds force was made with no understanding of the potential reactions. If they read The New York Times or caught any of its parroting on friendly news shows, they might even think the president had “stunned” the Pentagon officials who had only offered the kill option “to make other options seem reasonable.” The problem presented here is none of these three scenarios is accurate. The U.S. military is not currently under any order to leave Iraq, though in America’s interest they should, and they might. Further, the Pentagon does not present a president with military options that’s ramifications have not been considered, nor does the chairman of the Joint Chiefs ever present the president a fake option. “For non-Arabic speakers, reporting in the main news outlets [New York Times] and [Washington] Post is so misinformed (either on purpose or because of incompetence) that you might think that the Iraqi State has officially voted for ejecting U.S. forces from Iraq,” wrote Hussain Abdul-Hussain, the Iraqi-Lebanese chief of Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai’s Washington Bureau. The vote, he explained, was a party-line vote by Shia Iran supporters in the parliament. Kurdish and Sunni lawmakers had boycotted the session despite threats from the very same Shia militia that kicked off the current cycle of violence, leading to a barely functioning quorum in the chamber. Of course, to admit threats of political violence from pro-Iranian militia would undermine the media narrative that the parliament, like the militia mob that attacked our embassy, represents everyday Iraqis. What these pro-Iranian lawmakers passed was no United States ouster, but a non-binding, partisan resolution that the United States should leave. The “quorum,” Abdul-Hussain writes, “was 170 of 328 (half + 4, just like Hezbollah designated a [prime minister] in Lebanese parliament with half + 4).” “Iraqi Parliament Passes Resolution to End Foreign Troop Presence,” The New York Times blared. Four paragraphs down into the copy, by Reuters, the reader learns the resolution is non-binding. “Repercussions mount over U.S. strike, with Iran nuclear deal pullback and Iraq call for U.S. troop pullout,” the Los Angeles Times tells us, waiting 14 paragraphs to explain the resolution is not binding, objectively failing the reader. That the president played golf, by contrast, is treated to the fifth paragraph. The Washington Post, which elected to use the Associated Press’s write-up, didn’t include the important non-binding information at all. “Iraqi Parliament calls for expulsion of U.S. troops from the country,” it says. That’s it. Headline, as well as copy. Fine, you might think. Headline space is limited; in today’s digital environment reporters and editors must more than ever grab a reader’s attention in the first few moments; the intricacies of the process can wait further down for the more committed news consumer. Sounds reasonable. Any editor currently in the business is familiar with the struggle. Then, since the purposes of a headline and opening are to inform the reader with reliable information they can use, these outlets failed. “[Either] on purpose,” Abdul-Hussain writes, “or because of incompetence.” So what, you might ask. The United States might actually leave, so what’s the harm? The harm lies in the either the incredible ignorance of journalists or, worse and sadly just as likely, the willing manipulation of readers to serve a political end. The vast majority of Americans are casual consumers of the news. They have families, jobs, bills — dozens of concerns more pressing and tangible than world news consumption. These news consumers rely on headlines, television chyrons, and brief summaries to stay generally informed on what is occurring in the world, and when those things are misleading they are misled, regardless of if reality is buried deeper in the story. But what about the more committed consumers? Maybe those who have family serving in the military and want to know what’s going on? These readers and viewers might have been treated to The New York Times’ reporting that “top military officials” were “flabbergasted” and “immediately alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on American troops in the region” after the president’s decision to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani. “Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable,” the story reads. The amazing thing here is it’s almost certainly factually true while also deeply misleading: The four reporters on the byline found at least two “top military officials” who said they were “flabbergasted” by the president’s call. Notice the information here isn’t sourced. It’s not “according to Pentagon officials involved in the decision process,” “Pentagon officials involved in the drafting of options,” or even Pentagon officials “with first-hand knowledge of the presentation.” It’s what we call “Voice of God”– it is simply said, and so it is. No decent editor would let that pass without digging in deeper, and the Times’s editors certainly did. “Who are your sources?” “What is their knowledge of the situation?” “Why aren’t we naming them?” “Do you have confirmation?” These were all asked as a matter of basic practice, yet none of the answers are even hinted at in the article. Even descriptions of the officials’ level of involvement or reason for request for anonymity were excluded. This, to be clear, requires a level of comfort with displaying an incredible disdain for the reader. Further, is the outlined scenario at all plausible? Keep in mind this is a president the Times has repeatedly and breathlessly warned is crazy, impulsive, callous, vicious, and constantly feared by patriotic government employees doing their best to restrain him. Still, these reporters are willing to believe the career military and civilian leaders of the Pentagon float ideas they consider dangerous or stupid? Of course not, but disbelief is routinely suspended in the face of bias-confirming story lines. Were any of these people in the room or involved in the planning process? Certainly not, or they would not have been surprised by the call. Additionally, they would have reviewed the potential repercussions. “The options that go to the executive are vetted through the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense before they are presented to the president,” Alex Plitsas, who served for a time as chief of sensitive activities for the assistant secretary for special operations under President Barack Obama, told The Federalist. “Legal counsel reviews them, as does everyone else [in the chain].” “You don’t,” he stated emphatically, “do throwaway COAs [course of actions].” There is also zero reason to believe Join Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley or Secretary of Defense Mark Esper were doing any of what The New York Times reported. So why was this a story at all? Short answer: it fit The Narrative of an irrational president making decisions that terrify his own commanders. A Narrative, in this case, teed up for reporters by Obama’s own Iran man. But often, The Narrative is false. Or, as President Donald Trump prefers, “fake news.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 8:05:09 GMT -6
www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/colin-kaepernick-stupid-lie-about-america/Colin Kaepernick’s Stupid Lie About America By RICH LOWRY January 7, 2020 6:30 AM Soleimani’s crime was not that he was ‘driving while brown,’ and racism is not the driver of U.S. foreign policy. In the torrent of idiotic commentary unleashed by the killing of Qasem Soleimani, Colin Kaepernick’s deserves a place of honor. The NFL washout and Nike persona who makes sure the company doesn’t produce any overly patriotic sneakers tweeted, “There is nothing new about American terrorist attacks against Black and Brown people for the expansion of American imperialism.” For Kaepernick, Soleimani is just another dark-skinned man brutalized by the United States. The Iranian terror master was, in effect, driving while nonwhite and paid the ultimate price. For all we know, the operator of the MQ-9 Reaper drone that took him out was making a white-supremacy hand signal while unleashing this racist attack. This interpretation of events takes identity politics to a whole new level, defining the blood-drenched hit man for a terrorist, profoundly anti-Semitic, deeply intolerant theocracy as a victim, based on his skin color alone. Obviously, no one will mistake Colin Kaepernick for an original thinker; he’s only repeating things he’s read or been told, in a slightly more lurid form. His worldview is disproportionately represented in academia and on the left, which objects to calling Soleimani a monster (hence, Elizabeth Warren’s pathetic backtracking after forthrightly condemning Soleimani in her initial statement). NOW WATCH: 'U.S. Kills Iranian Quds Force Leader Qassim Soleimani in Baghdad Airstrike' It is certainly true that racism has had a large hand in U.S. foreign policy through much of our history. We drove Native Americans from their lands, in part based on racial animus. Thomas Jefferson refused to recognize an independent Haiti after a successful slave revolt, for fear it would fuel insurrections here. The American South coveted lands in Latin America prior to the Civil War, seeking more territory for slavery. After World War I, Woodrow Wilson opposed a racial-equality proposal made by Japan at the Paris Peace Conference. All of this, and more, is a stain on our nation’s history, but to consider racism the chief principle of a rapacious U.S. foreign policy is reductive, malicious, dishonest, and incredibly stupid. The fact is, and counter to the Left’s typical narrative, racism acted more as a brake on American expansion rather than an accelerant. Anti-imperialists didn’t want to incorporate more nonwhite people into the United States. This is a reason that we didn’t acquire more territory after the Mexican-American War, and the land we took control of tended to be lightly populated by native Mexicans. In his study of the aggressively expansionist period at the end of the 19th century, the historian Eric T. Love writes that “race ideas were used most openly, aggressively, and effectively by the enemies of imperialism.” More to the point, the U.S. engaged in titanic struggles in the 20th century against Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union, none of which were brown or black. Enormous resources of blood and treasure were poured into stopping these truly imperialist powers from subjecting foreign peoples to their rule. The United States opposed European colonialism, and its biggest wars since World War II were fought shoulder to shoulder with Asian people in Korea and Vietnam who didn’t want to be overrun by rival Asians allied with totalitarian powers. In the more immediate, post-9/11 period, we toppled the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. These were interventions motivated by national interest, but also optimistic and idealistic to a fault. Viewing these conflicts through a racial prism requires ignoring that the Taliban and Saddam overwhelmingly killed, tortured, and repressed other nonwhite people. The same is obviously true of Qasem Soleimani. He has prodigious amounts of American blood on his hands (of Americans of all races and creeds), but he mainly killed other people in the Middle East — Syrians opposed to Bashar al-Assad, Iraqis protesting Iranian influence, anyone who got in the way of the Iranian imperial project. His end is a boon to humanity, which should be obvious to anyone who’s not drunk on ideology or racial obsessions.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 9:05:09 GMT -6
“Civilization itself is coming apart in San Francisco. Right there in broad daylight on the city’s sidewalks that are littered with junkies and feces and dirty needles. The jewel of our Pacific coast is now filthier and more chaotic than downtown Mumbai, India. Literally. How did that happen? We need to know.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 9:10:46 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/haley-blasts-democrats-they-are-the-only-ones-that-are-mourning-the-loss-of-suleimaniHaley Blasts Democrats: They Are ‘The Only Ones That Are Mourning The Loss Of Suleimani’ Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley blasted the Democratic Party in a Fox News interview on Monday, saying that they are the only ones mourning the loss of Iranian terrorist Qassim Suleimani. “What the president did left the Iranian regime completely flat-footed,” Haley told Fox News’s Sean Hannity. ” They did not see this coming. They thought they could continue to do their multiple strikes.” “You could see the ayatollah crying today, because that was his number one strategist,” Haley continued. “That was the number one guy that has literally told all of the proxies in all of these countries who to kill, when to kill, how to kill. And that guy is now gone.” “You don’t see anyone standing up for Iran,” Haley added several moments later. “You’re not hearing any of the Gulf members. You’re not hearing China. You’re not hearing Russia. The only ones that are mourning the loss of Suleimani are our Democrat leadership, and our Democrat presidential candidates. No one else in the world, because they knew that this man had evil veins. They knew what he was capable of. And they saw the destruction and the lives lost based from his hands.” Transcript provided by Fox News: HANNITY: I watch this, and I’m thinking, wow, — do they want to bribe the mullahs again? The Clintons bribed Kim Jong-un. That didn’t work out. Bribing the mullahs didn’t work out. And, by the way, there was never any place, any time inspections anyway associated with that 10-year deal that expired, for $150 billion. To me, the Iranians have been at war with the world. They want Iranian hegemony. Am I wrong? HALEY: You know, I mean, you’ve got to look at the fact that the general provisions of the Iran deal were going to end in October. So, we’re going towards a time where we have to bring them to the negotiating table anyway. But make no mistake, Sean. What the president did left the Iranian regime completely flat-footed. They did not see this coming. They thought they could continue to do their multiple strikes. But when it got to the lives of Americans, the president is never going to allow that to happen. It happened with the contractor. When they started to threaten our diplomats at the embassy, our military personnel, the president put a stop to it. You could see the ayatollah crying today, because that was his number one strategist. That was the number one guy that has literally told all of the proxies in all of these countries who to kill, when to kill, how to kill. And that guy is now gone. HANNITY: And killing Americans. HALEY: So, Iran is having to regroup and figure out, now what? So, make no mistake. They’re shaking in their boots. They’re trying to figure this out. HANNITY: Well — HALEY: And I think the president showed great decisiveness, great resolve. And I think that this was a long time coming. If you look back two years ago, I gave a speech at the U.N. on Soleimani, and talked about the threats. The president has had restraint all of this time since we gave that speech. And I will tell you, we said then, he was not — by the entire Security Council, he was banned from leaving Iran. What was he doing in Iraq anyway? Trying to move in. HANNITY: Great question, yes. What — do you agree with — listen, I have always liked General Petraeus. He’s a great general, patriot, hero in this country. He said, it’s impossible to overstate the importance of this particular action. It’s more significant than the killing of bin Laden, even the death of al-Baghdadi. And he said Soleimani was the architect, operational commander of the Iranian effort to solidify control, the so-called Shia crescent stretching from Iran to Iraq, through Syria and Southern Lebanon. I think that’s the reason why the Jordanians, Egyptians and Saudis now are working with the Israelis, which I don’t think anybody saw coming. HALEY: Well, and I will tell you this. You don’t see anyone standing up for Iran. You’re not hearing any of the Gulf members. You’re not hearing China. You’re not hearing Russia. The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership, and our Democrat presidential candidates. HANNITY: That is sad. HALEY: No one else in the world, because they knew that this man had evil veins. They knew what he was capable of. And they saw the destruction and the lives lost based from his hands. And so… HANNITY: What a dumb — we have been hearing, oh, he’s evil, he’s a murderer, he killed Americans, and he — it’s the number one state sponsor of terror. And they’re fighting all these proxy wars, but, oh, we don’t want to make them mad. That’s what it sounds like to me. HALEY: You know, and you go tell that to the 608 American families who lost a loved one. Go tell that to the military members who lost a limb. This was something that needed to be done, and should be celebrated. And I will tell you right now, partisan politics should stop when it comes to foreign policy. This is about America united. We need to be completely behind the president, what he did, because every one of those countries are watching our news media right now, seeing what everyone’s saying. And this is a moment of strength for the United States. It’s a moment of strength for President Trump. HANNITY: I think Rouhani and the mullahs, they need to go to the refineries. Just go visit. Just hang out there for a few days. All right, Governor, Ambassador Nikki Haley, thank you for being with us.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 9:12:55 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/disaster-dems-consider-changes-to-ny-bail-reform-just-one-week-after-implementationDISASTER: Dems Consider Changes To NY ‘Bail Reform’ Just One Week After Implementation After an onslaught of bad press over the disastrous first week of Democrat-implemented “bail reform” in New York, Democrats are considering changes to the legislation. “Democrats are opening the door to changes on New York’s bail reform law as the legislative session begins this week,” a News 10 NBC report outlined on Tuesday. Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo “says he will consider adding hate crimes to the list of offenses for which judges can set bail.” The blue state’s criminal justice reform package has come under fire from even liberals, as noted by The Daily Wire. Bail reform, which was reportedly implemented early in New York City by Mayor Bill de Blasio, led to a woman charged with an anti-Semitic attack to be arrested and released three times in five days. Harris “was nabbed for allegedly slugging three Jewish women and yelling ‘F-U, Jews!’ but let go Saturday with no bail, despite an open assault case. Last month, she got no jail for a felony in another incident,” The New York Post reported. “Nabbed again Sunday in a new attack, she was once more freed, on no bail, Monday. In another case, a man charged with second degree manslaughter in connection to the murder of a 29-year-old Albany woman was released from jail after the judge overseeing the case reportedly claimed Democrats’ new “bail reform” legislation no longer allows her to keep the charged party in custody, The Daily Wire reported Thursday. “Happening now: Paul Barbaritano is being released on his own recognizance,” Spectrum News Albany’s Jaclyn Cangro reported. “He is charged with 2nd degree manslaughter in connection to the death of Nicole Jennings.” “Barbaritano was being held at the Albany County Jail. The DA’s Office argued he made admissions that he ’caused’ Jennings’ death,” Cangro noted. The judge “repeatedly said that’s no longer the burden for bail,” the reporter added. “A city man charged with second-degree manslaughter in the strangulation-and-stabbing death of a woman was released from jail Thursday under the new bail reforms that eliminated bail for that charge and most other felonies,” the Times-Union echoed. Last Tuesday, a man with a conviction for shooting an upstate New York police officer under his belt was released without bail for new drug offenses, Rochester First reported: Tyquan Rivera, the man convicted of shooting Rochester Police officer Anthony DiPonzio in 2009, was released from custody without bail Thursday. Rivera is facing two new counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree after being arrested in December. According to court paperwork, Rivera sold Fentanyl in 60 envelopes to two undercover officers in two separate sales. Assistant District Attorney Matt Schwartz said Rivera’s release is the result of the newly-enacted bail reform laws in New York state “Law enforcement officials and Republicans have spent months raising red flags on the changes, but their criticism caught more fervor in the last week as courts across the state have released people who would have remained behind bars under the old rules,” News 10 NBC highlighted. “We are done laying down and taking it,” warned New York Republican Chairman Nick Langworthy. “We are going to fight back and fight back with authority as Republicans.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 9:20:03 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/ricky-gervais-spends-day-after-golden-globes-mocking-outraged-media-criticsRicky Gervais Spends Day After Golden Globes Mocking Outraged Media Critics The only thing more savage than Ricky Gervais’s performance at the Golden Globes — and more welcome from viewers fed up with self-righteous lectures from Hollywood and the media — is his response to the outrage of his critics. The comedian spent the 24 hours after his self-declared “last time” hosting the show mocking various media outlets and personalities bemoaning his instantly viral comments Sunday night. In a series of tweets and retweets starting soon after he delivered his now-famous opening remarks — in which he instructed award winners to “come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God and f*** off, OK?” and repeatedly called out Hollywood hypocrisy — Gervais held his critics and their complaints up to scorn for his followers, which he noted at one point during the day had grown by 300,000 since his epic final time hosting the Globes. Among the outlets and entities whose responses Gervais ridiculed are The Los Angeles Times, The Hollywood Reporter, The Independent and the very show he hosted. Below are some highlights from his tweets and retweets. Sunday night, Gervais retweeted a post from comedian Doug Stanhope blasting the “dumb show” Gervais was hosting and the “douchebags” in the audience (posts below): “Just watched @rickygervais opening for some dumb award show. Not only did he kill it, but if you watch the stars in the audience to see who laughs or doesn’t, you can tell who the douchebags really are.” Gervais then mockingly highlighted the L.A. Times’ Lorraine Ali lamenting him telling the self-congratulatory Hollywood elite “they sucked”: “The #GoldenGlobes mood was already sober thanks to an impeachment, threat of war with Iran and Australian bush fires. The last thing anyone needed was Ricky Gervais there, telling them they sucked.” Later, Gervais retweeted a brutal response from Jim Norton to the L.A. Times’ take on his performance: “The @latimes is garbage. ‘The last thing anyone needed was for the smirking master of ceremonies to reprimand them for having hope..’@rickygervais didn’t ‘reprimand them for having hope’ you stupid, biased ass. He mocked them for being self-important, phony woke and hypocritical.” In response to a post by The Hollywood Reporter, Gervais issued a reminder from his remarks at the show: “Remember, they’re just jokes. We’re all gonna die soon & there’s no sequel.” The comedian also retweeted Piers Morgan cheering him for exposing “virtue-signaling” Hollywood elites as “shameless two-faced charlatans”: “Ricky Gervais delivered a glorious kick in the globes to Hollywood’s woke virtue-signalling hypocrites — and exposed them as a bunch of shameless two-faced charlatans.” The Independent’s rebuke of Gervais — who supposedly “cheapened the Golden Globes and overshadows vital political statements” — earned a laughing-so-hard-I’m-crying emoji from him, while New York Magazine’s piece on the “6 faces of celebrities reacting to Ricky Gervais” earned a retweet from the comedian. Gervais was particularly dumbfounded by claims that his comments were somehow “right wing”: “How the f*** can teasing huge corporations, and the richest, most privileged people in the world be considered right wing?” he asked. Demonstrating how much the public is on his side, Gervais welcomed his 300,000 new followers from Monday alone: “Welcome to the 300,000 new followers I acquired today. I promise you won’t like everything I say, but here’s a sexy photo,” he wrote. But for all those fans hoping he will change his mind and host the show “every year,” Gervais made clear Monday that it’s “NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.” Early Monday, Gervais issued his most sincere comments of the day, thanking the audience for their strong response to his performance: “Thanks for all your amazing comments about my Golden Globes monologue. Best reaction ever and that means a lot to me. I had a blast but thank f*** it’s over, so I can get back to my real job of editing #AfterLife2 and touring #SuperNature. Make Jokes, Not War.” Tweets below followed by a transcript of Gervais’s opening remarks: Below is the transcript of Gervais’ opening comments: www.dailywire.com/news/never-gonna-happen-ricky-gervais-responds-to-reaction-over-golden-globes-performanceYou’ll be pleased to know this is the last time I’m hosting these awards, so I don’t care anymore. I’m joking. I never did. I’m joking, I never did. NBC clearly don’t care either — fifth time. I mean, Kevin Hart was fired from the Oscars for some offensive tweets — hello?
Lucky for me, the Hollywood Foreign Press can barely speak English and they’ve no idea what Twitter is, so I got offered this gig by fax. Let’s go out with a bang, let’s have a laugh at your expense. Remember, they’re just jokes. We’re all gonna die soon and there’s no sequel, so remember that.
But you all look lovely all dolled up. You came here in your limos. I came here in a limo tonight and the license plate was made by Felicity Huffman. No, shush. It’s her daughter I feel sorry for. OK? That must be the most embarrassing thing that’s ever happened to her. And her dad was in Wild Hogs.
Lots of big celebrities here tonight. Legends. Icons. This table alone — Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro … Baby Yoda. Oh, that’s Joe Pesci, sorry. I love you man. Don’t have me whacked. But tonight isn’t just about the people in front of the camera. In this room are some of the most important TV and film executives in the world. People from every background. They all have one thing in common: They’re all terrified of Ronan Farrow. He’s coming for ya. Talking of all you perverts, it was a big year for pedophile movies. Surviving R. Kelly, Leaving Neverland, Two Popes. Shut up. Shut up. I don’t care. I don’t care.
Many talented people of color were snubbed in major categories. Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do about that. Hollywood Foreign press are all very racist. Fifth time. So. We were going to do an In-Memoriam this year, but when I saw the list of people who died, it wasn’t diverse enough. No, it was mostly white people and I thought, nah, not on my watch. Maybe next year. Let’s see what happens.
No one cares about movies anymore. No one goes to cinema, no one really watches network TV. Everyone is watching Netflix. This show should just be me coming out, going, “Well done Netflix. You win everything. Good night.” But no, we got to drag it out for three hours. You could binge-watch the entire first season of Afterlife instead of watching this show. That’s a show about a man who wants to kill himself cause his wife dies of cancer and it’s still more fun than this. Spoiler alert, season two is on the way so in the end he obviously didn’t kill himself. Just like Jeffrey Epstein. Shut up. I know he’s your friend but I don’t care.
Seriously, most films are awful. Lazy. Remakes, sequels. I’ve heard a rumor there might be a sequel to Sophie’s Choice. I mean, that would just be Meryl just going, “Well, it’s gotta be this one then.” All the best actors have jumped to Netflix, HBO. And the actors who just do Hollywood movies now do fantasy-adventure nonsense. They wear masks and capes and really tight costumes. Their job isn’t acting anymore. It’s going to the gym twice a day and taking steroids, really. Have we got an award for most ripped junky? No point, we’d know who’d win that.
Martin Scorsese made the news for his controversial comments about the Marvel franchise. He said they’re not real cinema and they remind him about theme parks. I agree. Although I don’t know what he’s doing hanging around theme parks. He’s not big enough to go on the rides. He’s tiny. The Irishman was amazing. It was amazing. It was great. Long, but amazing. It wasn’t the only epic movie. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, nearly three hours long. Leonardo DiCaprio attended the premiere and by the end his date was too old for him. Even Prince Andrew was like, “Come on, Leo, mate. You’re nearly 50-something.”
The world got to see James Corden as a fat p****. He was also in the movie Cats. No one saw that movie. And the reviews, shocking. I saw one that said, “This is the worst thing to happen to cats since dogs.” But Dame Judi Dench defended the film saying it was the film she was born to play because she loves nothing better than plunking herself down on the carpet, lifting her leg and licking her [expletive]. (Coughs) Hairball. She’s old-school.
It’s the last time, who cares? Apple roared into the TV game with The Morning Show, a superb drama about the importance of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a company that runs sweatshops in China. Well, you say you’re woke but the companies you work for in China — unbelievable. Apple, Amazon, Disney. If ISIS started a streaming service you’d call your agent, wouldn’t you?
So if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything. You know nothing about the real world. Most of you spent less time in school than Greta Thunberg.
So if you win, come up, accept your little award, thank your agent, and your God and f*** off, OK? It’s already three hours long. Right, let’s do the first award.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 9:36:35 GMT -6
But, Climate Change..... www.breitbart.com/environment/2020/01/07/24-australians-charged-with-bushfire-arson-as-further-arrests-expected/24 Australians Charged with Bushfire Arson as Further Arrests Expected Twenty-four Australians in the state of New South Wales alone have been arrested since early November for intentionally setting bushfires as a record number of blazes blazes continue to burn across the country. More suspects are expected to be questioned in coming days as local police work to find and apprehend culprits who have contributed to the devastating fire season, the Sydney Morning Herald reports. www.smh.com.au/national/nsw-fires-legal-action-taken-against-183-people-this-bushfire-season-20200106-p53p97.htmlTwo dozen people charged with deliberately setting fires are among 183 facing legal action in the state, according to the New South Wales Police Force.In addition to those facing the most serious charges of starting fires intentionally, authorities said another 53 people are facing legal action for not complying with the state’s fire ban and 47 people have faced legal action for discarding a lit cigarette or match on land.
Starting a bushfire intentionally and being reckless in causing its spread can result in up to 21 years in prison, authorities said.
Legal actions can range “from cautions through to criminal charges,” according to NSW police. The story of man-made fires is the same right across the country, as the Australian newspaper reports. Evacuees are transported in a lighter, amphibious, resupply, cargo (LARC) transport amphibious vehicle, from Mallacoota, Victoria, Australia. Navy ships plucked hundreds of people from beaches and tens of thousands were urged to flee before hot weather and strong winds in the forecast worsen Australia’s already-devastating wildfires. (Australia Department of Defense via AP) It reports police arrested 183 people nationally for lighting bushfires across Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania in the past few months. Queensland state police say 101 people have been picked up for setting fires in the bush, 32 adults and 69 juveniles. In Tasmania, where fires have sprung up in the north of the state and outside Hobart, five were caught setting fire to vegetation. Victoria reported 43 charged for 2019. Meanwhile, the University of Sydney estimated 480 million animals have perished in the most populous state of New South Wales alone. “The fires have also been devastating for Australia’s wildlife and wild places, as vital areas of bush, forests and parks have been scorched and many millions of animals killed or injured,” Dr. Stuart Blanch, senior manager land clearing and restoration with World Wildlife Fund-Australia, told ABC News. “Until the fires subside the full extent of damage will remain unknown.” As Breitbart News reported, the link between arsonists and the deadly fires that devastate Australia every summer is well known and documented, with the rate of deliberately lit fires escalating rapidly during the school holiday period. Dr Paul Read, co-director of the National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson, said the great majority of Australian bushfires are deliberately lit by “cunning, furtive and versatile criminals,” reports ABC News. “About 85 per cent are related to human activity, 13 per cent confirmed arson and 37 per cent suspected arson,” he said. “The remainder are usually due to reckless fire lighting or even just children playing with fire.” Dr Read said holidays and summer were a bad combination when it came to criminal fire starters. “School holidays are a prime time for fire bugs, but especially over summer,” he said. “The kids have got time to get out there and light, and the most dangerous adults choose hot days.”
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 10:24:15 GMT -6
On Friday morning the United States killed General Qassim Soleimani, a top commander of Iran’s al-Quds Force, in an airstrike at Baghdad’s International Airport. The strike also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. Seven people were reportedly killed in the airstrike. The Iranian regime is threatening retaliation against the United States following the death of their terror leader. On Sunday the Iranian Regime offered an $80 million bounty for anyone who brings in the head of President Donald Trump for killing Qassam Soleimani. And on Tuesday the Iranian parliament allocated 200 million euros or $223 million dollars to the al-Quds forces to avenge Soleimani’s death. It may be easier than expected for the regime to attack targets INSIDE the United States. In July 2018 Trump tweeted about Obama granting citizenship to 2,500 Iranians during the nuclear deal negotiations, including to government officials. The liberal media accused Trump of making a false claim. www.macombdaily.com/news/nation-world-news/trump-falsely-claims-obama-gave-citizenship-to-iranians-during-nuclear/article_b7e70581-b9a2-5d8b-b287-249cd3af00e8.htmlBut Trump got the information from a top Iranian official as reported by FOX News. www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-administration-granted-citizenship-to-2500-iranians-during-nuclear-deal-iran-officialThe Obama administration granted citizenship to 2,500 Iranians, including family members of government officials, while negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, a senior cleric and member of parliament has claimed.
Hojjat al-Islam Mojtaba Zolnour, who is chairman of Iran’s parliamentary nuclear committee and a member of its national security and foreign affairs committee, made the allegations during an interview with the country’s Etemad newspaper, cited by the country’s Fars News agency.
He claimed it was done as a favor to senior Iranian officials linked to President Hassan Rouhani, and he alleged the move sparked a competition among Iranian officials over whose children would benefit from the scheme.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 10:28:33 GMT -6
Muslim teen Fadi Zraika was seen laughing as he left court on Tuesday in Sydney. Fadi and his brother Abraham are accused a starting a fire at a Guildford park in December. The brothers set off fireworks that started the park on fire. They were arrested at a fast food restaurant. Fadi Zraika was seen laughing as he left court on Tuesday. www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/parramatta/teen-accused-of-lighting-fire-laughs-after-court-appearance/news-story/1f8e27db12131cc603a9436b61a715c6#pq=L2vRooWestern Sydney teen Fadi Zraika — one of the two teens accused of lighting a grass fire at a Guildford park while bushfires ravaged NSW — laughed outside court today after appearing on multiple charges. Police allege Fadi and Abraham Zreika, both 18, set off fireworks that sparked a grass fire at Bright Park, Guildford, on December 22. Police were called to the park about 2.40pm after reports of several loud explosions and saw fireworks exploding and several small grassfires that spread rapidly in sudden winds. The Rural Fire Service doused the fires. Zraika, of Villawood, and Zreika, of Merrylands, were arrested at a fast food restaurant in Merrylands.
|
|
|
Post by wishboned on Jan 7, 2020 10:54:11 GMT -6
www.king5.com/article/news/local/seattle-womans-tweet-about-south-carolina-hunting-tragedy-sparks-outrage/281-e2ee9558-8df0-43aa-bdb6-a8dab095c0c4SEATTLE — In the aftermath of a South Carolina hunting accident, a Washington woman's now-deleted tweet is being called repulsive and shameful. On New Year's Day, Kim Drawdy and his nine-year-old daughter, Lauren, were reportedly mistaken for deer and shot by a fellow hunter. As soon as NBC News shared the article about the accident on Twitter, condolences came flooding in, but so did a comment attributed to a Seattle-area woman, Lana Kiossovski. The comment listed under Kiossovski's name said, "1.5 less MAGAbilly's in the world. At least they died supporting their beloved 2nd amendment."
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 10:58:59 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/06/speaker-at-soleimani-funeral-tries-to-crowdsource-80-million-bounty-on-trump/Speaker at Soleimani Funeral Tries to Crowdsource $80 Million Bounty on TrumpA speaker on Iranian state television during the funeral of Iranian terror chief Qasem Soleimani on Sunday attempted to offer an $80 million bounty for President Donald Trump – but told the audience 80 million Muslims each had to pitch in $1 to cover the cost.Iran is home to an estimated 80 million people. The speaker appeared to be making the inspirational point that, together, Iranians could do anything, including prompt the assassination of the President of the United States. London-based Iranian opposition journalist M. Hanif Jazayeri first circulated the clip with English subtitles on Twitter, which appeared to air on live coverage of the funeral in Iran. The Iranian regime controls all information legally broadcast in the country. he man did not clarify who he referred to as “we” or, more specifically, if he was speaking on behalf of the Iranian regime, in the clip. The offer, which the man specified he could not afford, circulating online prompted comedian George Lopez to respond that he would “do it” for $40 million, instead. Soleimani was the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)’s Quds Force and is believed to have been responsible for at least 500 American deaths and thousands of casualties during his tenure. He led Iran’s international infiltration efforts in Iraq, Syria, and abroad in countries like Venezuela. President Trump authorized an airstrike to eliminate Soleimani last week in response to a pro-Iran mob attacking the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. The mob wrote, “Soleimani is our commander” in spray paint on the building. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei responded to the strike with threats of “severe revenge” for “the criminals who bloodied their foul hands with [Soleimani’s] blood,” vowing that “God willing, his work and his path will not be stopped.” The offer of a bounty followed by a fundraising attempt highlights the Iranian regime’s poor financial state after years of increasing sanctions since Trump took office. In June 2019, American officials said they had evidence President Trump’s sanctions on Iran had forced its proxy, Hezbollah, to beg for spare change using “piggy banks” placed in grocery stores and retail outlets. Last week, it was reported that President Trump’s sanctions on Iran have effectively wiped out President Barack Obama’s $150 billion Nuclear Deal.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 13:01:36 GMT -6
Another former NFL Player making dumb comments: www.breitbart.com/sports/2020/01/07/former-nfl-player-albert-haynesworth-suggests-iran-should-attack-white-house/Former Tennessee Titans Player Albert Haynesworth raised eyebrows with a post suggesting that Iran should bomb the White House in the wake of President Donald Trump’s strike against the chief of Iran’s military terror arm. The former player’s post came on the heels of the missile strike President Donald Trump ordered against Iranian Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani, a military leader and terorist who has been responsible for the deaths of thousands of people going back to the 1980s. Haynesworth’s Instagram post featured a photo of the White House with a red circle around it and a caption reading, “Iran, if you are going to attack the United States well, here is a picture for you! #justtryingtohelp us folks that aren’t starting wars.” Many of Haynesworth’s own fans began to criticize the troubled former NFL player for his post urging Iran to commit a terror strike against the White House. The criticism grew loud enough that Haynesworth deleted the offensive post. “I deleted the last post because literally you people think I was trying to direct Iran to attack,” Haynesworth wrote in the follow-up post. “If that was a serious post which it wasn’t, I would be telling Iran Innocent Americans did not attack you. You are having beef with Donald Trump not innocent Americans! But most of the people that are getting pimped out by Donald Trump definitely don’t have a sense of humor!” However, Haynesworth followed the deletion with several more posts attacking Trump and anyone who might support him. Haynesworth has a long list of legal troubles ranging from multiple traffic citations, including reckless driving and reckless boating, to failure to pay child support. He was also controversial as a player for being needlessly violent on the field. In 2006, for instance, he was suspended for stomping an opponent’s head. Haynesworth, a six-foot-six, 320-pound defensive tackle, was suspended for five games as a result.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 14:31:55 GMT -6
From back in 2015:
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 14:34:29 GMT -6
CNN Settled out of court: www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-covington-catholic-student-nick-sandmann-gets-settlement-from-cnn-after-275-million-lawsuitBREAKING: Covington Catholic Student Nick Sandmann Gets Settlement From CNN After $275 Million Lawsuit Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann received reportedly has received a settlement from CNN after suing the far-left network for smearing him last year. “CNN agreed Tuesday to settle a lawsuit with Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann,” Fox 19 reported. “The amount of the settlement was not made public during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Covington.” Sandmann also filed lawsuits against The Washington Post and NBC Universal, each for $250 million or over, and is reportedly planning to “sue Gannett, owners of The Enquirer.” Get 4 Lines for $25 a Month when you Switch to Boost Mobile Get 4 Samsung Galaxy phones when you make the switch to Boost’s super reliable, super-fast nationwide network Ad By Boost Mobile See More Sandmann attorneys Todd McMurtry and Lin Wood filed a $275 million lawsuit against CNN in March of last year in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. “CNN was probably more vicious in its direct attacks on Nicholas than The Washington Post. And CNN goes into millions of individuals’ homes,” Wood told Fox News’ Mark Levin last year. “CNN couldn’t resist the idea that here’s a guy with a young boy, that Make America Great Again cap on. So they go after him.” “They really went after Nicholas with the idea that he was part of a mob that was attacking the Black Hebrew Israelites, yelling racist slurs at the Black Hebrew Israelites. Totally false,” Wood continued. “Now you say you’ve seen the tape; if you took the time to look at the full context of what happened that day, Nicholas Sandmann did absolutely nothing wrong. He was, as I’ve said to others, he was the only adult in the room.” In an interview on Fox News last year, McMurtry told anchor Sandra Smith, “Well, what CNN’s tagline is facts first. And what we believe their reporting was in this circumstance was lies first; cover up second, and facts not yet determined by that organization. So the difference between this lawsuit and the other lawsuit that we have filed is that CNN is a very significant media organization with a much broader reach than say the Washington Post. It has a Twitter followers of 41 million people. It published four videos. Nine online articles that were tweeted out. So that’s millions and millions and millions of repetitions of the lies and falsehoods that CNN spread.” “Well, we’ve talked about the impact the impact on Nicholas Sandmann a number of times and it — it is significant,” McMurtry continued. “Nicholas Sandmann was a 16 year old man who had a perfect reputation. He was loved by his parents, respected at his school, and had many good friends at Covington Catholic High School. So he was a person that was doing very well in life and due to his strong character, he still is. But never the less, his character has now been determined by the lies issued by CNN. So the facts were not first, the lies were.” In early February, Sandmann’s lawyers released a list of 54 individuals and news organizations that they sent letters to instructing them to preserve evidence for potential lawsuits. The list includes: The Washington Post The New York Times Cable News Network, Inc. (CNN) The Guardian National Public Radio TMZ Atlantic Media Inc. Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. Diocese of Covington Diocese of Lexington Archdiocese of Louisville Diocese of Baltimore Ana Cabrera (CNN) Sara Sidner (CNN) Erin Burnett (CNN) S.E. Cupp (CNN) Elliot C. McLaughlin (CNN) Amanda Watts (CNN) Emanuella Grinberg (CNN) Michelle Boorstein (Washington Post) Cleve R. Wootson Jr. (Washington Post) Antonio Olivo (Washington Post) Joe Heim (Washington Post) Michael E. Miller (Washington Post) Eli Rosenberg (Washington Post) Isaac Stanley-Becker (Washington Post) Kristine Phillips (Washington Post) Sarah Mervosh (New York Times) Emily S. Rueb (New York Times) Maggie Haberman (New York Times) David Brooks (New York Times) Shannon Doyne Kurt Eichenwald Andrea Mitchell (NBC/MSNBC) Savannah Guthrie (NBC) Joy Reid (MSNBC) Chuck Todd (NBC) Noah Berlatsky Elisha Fieldstadt (NBC) Eun Kyung Kim HBO Bill Maher Warner Media Conde Nast GQ Heavy.com The Hill The Atlantic Bustle.com Ilhan Omar Elizabeth Warren Kathy Griffin Alyssa Milano Jim Carrey
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 14:36:13 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/time-teaches-parents-how-to-discuss-gen-soleimanis-death-with-kidsTIME Teaches Parents How To Discuss Gen. Soleimani’s Death With Kids Even though parents would rather protect their child’s innocence rather than talk about serious world issues, TIME offered up instructions on how they can best discuss the death of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani with their precious little tykes. According to TIME, President Trump’s drone strike against a known enemy of the United States – a man responsible for American deaths abroad and who increasingly threatened the region’s stability – has “fueled anxiety” among people, which may then lead children “to have lots of questions.” “We realize this is a difficult topic to explain to kids,” says the magazine. “TIME for Kids is here to help. The guide below offers talking points for how to answer questions about this tough topic. It’s not intended to be used as a script. It’s meant to arm you with the information you need if you choose to bring up the topic or if kids ask questions about it.” “Trust your instincts. You know your kids best,” it continues. “Use that knowledge to gauge the depth and breadth of your discussion. Sometimes, it’s best to let a child take the lead and only answer the questions that are asked. Often, brief and simple answers can satisfy a child’s curiosity.” If the child were to inquire (and it’s doubtful any child would) about the identity of Qassem Soleimani, TIME instructed parents not to describe him as a terrorist bad guy (terms that children might understand and identify with) but rather a “top military leader in Iran, a country in the Middle East.” If asked by the little tyke on why the president took action against the Iranian, TIME essentially advises parents to blame it all on President Trump’s perception of Soleimani as a terrorist. “President Donald Trump has called Soleimani a terrorist,” TIME says in its instruction. “Trump says Soleimani ordered attacks on American military and diplomats and was planning attacks against Americans in the Middle East. For this reason, Trump ordered the U.S. military to kill Soleimani. The drone attack took place at an airport in Baghdad, in Iraq. An Iraqi leader was also killed.” After describing the spate of attacks that led to Soleimani’s death, including a Dec. 27 rocket strike killed one American civilian while wounding several U.S. service members, TIME tells parents to say that “Trump says Soleimani ordered these attacks.” “U.S. military leaders gave Trump several choices for how to respond to Iran’s actions,” TIME continues. “Killing Soleimani was considered the most extreme. Some top U.S. military and government officials have expressed surprise and concern about Trump’s decision. But the President insists it was in America’s best interest.” After covering several other topics, including fears about a potential war with Iran and the reinstatement of the draft, TIME then cites psychologist Paul Coleman to instruct parents on what they should do if their “child is feeling worried,” which would only be happening if parents are reckless enough to talk about the Iranian situation in the first place. Coleman, author of Finding Peace When Your Heart Is in Pieces, suggests following these SAFE steps: Search for hidden questions or fears. Ask what else is on their mind about what happened, what their friends say about it, and what their biggest worry is right now. Act. Keep routines going—homework, bedtime rituals, and so on—because they’re reassuring and distracting. “It is a good time to have them do kind things for others,” says Coleman. Feel feelings. “Let them know their feelings make sense,” says Coleman. Let them talk it out and show that you understand. Ease Minds. After you’re sure they’ve talked through their fears, you can assure them of their safety.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 14:50:10 GMT -6
freebeacon.com/politics/aoc-likes-tweet-from-russian-state-media-claiming-iran-doesnt-target-civilians/AOC Likes Tweet From Russian State Media Claiming Iran Doesn’t Target Civilians Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) liked a tweet from a Russian-funded operative claiming that Iran, the world's most prolific state sponsor of terrorism, does not target civilians. "A friend flying into the US says he hasn't seen so much security since 9/11," activist Rania Khalek said in a Sunday tweet liked by the Democratic congresswoman. "The US is terrified of how Iran will retaliate. Iran won't attack civilians, that's what al Qaeda does. But it shows this assassination did the opposite of making Americans safer and our leaders know it." Khalek is a host for In the Now, a viral media company funded by the Russian government that was kicked off Facebook for its pro-Russia propaganda. She previously served as an editor for anti-Israel site The Electronic Intifada but resigned after speaking at a pro-Bashar al-Assad conference in Syria. The extent of Khalek's pro-Iran advocacy was on full display in a recent YouTube livestream in which the activist claimed that "Iran is a country that mostly keeps to itself." She also said "it's a really brave country that's been essential to keeping the Middle East stable throughout the last several decades." Contrary to Khalek's claims, Iran has been responsible for countless attacks on civilians carried out by Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its funding of various terror organizations. Ocasio-Cortez's office did not respond to questions about Khalek's Russian state affiliation or her claims about Iran's targeting of civilians. Ocasio-Cortez is not the only radical freshman Democrat who has interacted with Khalek. In 2019, fellow "Squad" member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) approvingly quote-tweeted Khalek along with a clenched-fist emoji, typically a sign of solidarity.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 16:40:17 GMT -6
www.breitbart.com/middle-east/2020/01/07/the-nuclear-option-soleimani-is-dead-and-america-first-is-alive/President Trump did not get elected to spark a war with Iran. Nor was he elected to use American blood, sweat, and treasure to fix the hopelessly broken Middle East. Not since 9/11 has a nominee from either party run a campaign with such a clear, forceful and credible promise to roll up America’s far-flung foreign entanglements. It is one of the chief reasons Mr. Trump won the 2016 election. That said, watching the full-blown hysterics out of Washington over the past few days reveals just how wildly delusional the Trump-haters have become. Their hatred of Mr. Trump has always been all-consuming. From the start, they hated Mr. Trump more than they ever loved America. In fact, that is precisely why he is such a threat to them: his practical, common sense, “America First” agenda reveals how rotten so many politicians and pundits in both parties have become in Washington. The notion that America should spend billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of soldiers to protect and enforce the borders of a bunch of barbaric countries halfway across the globe — while ignoring our own borders — is absurd in the extreme. The idea that a festering theocratic dump in the sand of the Middle East poses greater immediate threat to regular Americans than the blood cartels and human body traffickers next door in Mexico is mind-boggling. And this obsession with nation-building in countries no decent American could locate on a world map while utterly ignoring the Byzantine federal bureaucracy that has held back our own economy for decades is downright immoral. Mr. Trump is the first president since Ronald Reagan to come along and realize all this. And he is unapologetic about it, which really drives his opponents in both parties completely out of their minds. But none of these “America First” principles that make up the Trump Doctrine have anything to do with Mr. Trump’s decision last week to order the drone strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, the powerful military leader of Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism around the world. One of the big problems with getting deeply entangled all around the world is that it is very hard to withdraw — especially after you have just finished killing a bunch of them. You never want to turn your back on these people, even if your intent is peace. So we are deeply entangled in Iraq, a place Mr. Trump and many Americans would dearly like to depart. Along comes Iran, which launches an attack on our embassy compound in Baghdad, ordered by this thug Soleimani. What on God’s green Earth is Mr. Trump supposed to do in response to such an attack? Write a check for more than $1 billion and give it to the mullahs? Send a plane under the cover of darkness carrying pallets of $400 million in unmarked cash for the ayatollah? Wipeout effective sanctions so that Soleimani might sow even more terrorism around the world? Well, that is precisely what the previous administration did. But not Mr. Trump. Instead, he killed the thug. And good riddance. Now, let’s get back to the business of disentangling ourselves from Iraq and the rest of that God-forsaken, barren land. But don’t forget: Never turn your back to them while you’re walking out and never take your finger off the trigger.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jan 7, 2020 16:46:01 GMT -6
It's ok for Obama to drone terrorists, but President Trump can't do it? Got to love the liberal double standard: www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-drones-double-down_n_4208815Obama Told Aides He’s ‘Really Good At Killing People,’ New Book ‘Double Down’ Claims A new book on the 2012 presidential campaign claims that President Barack Obama told aides that he is “really good at killing people.” According to Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, the authors of Double Down: Game Change 2012, Obama made the comment while discussing drone strikes last year. CNN‘s Peter Hamby noted the anecdote in his review of the book for the Washington Post. Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost’s next chapter Join HuffPost While the White House has not commented on the president’s alleged remarks, senior Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer on Sunday brushed off, but did not dispute, other reports from the book, including that campaign officials weighed replacing Vice President Joe Biden with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket. “The president is always frustrated about leaks,” Pfeiffer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “I haven’t talked to him about this book. I haven’t read it. He hasn’t read it. But he hates leaks.” The quote comes in the context of both the drone program and the killing of Osama bin Laden by a special forces strike force. The passage also specifically references the death of another al Qaeda leader, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen on Sept. 30, 2011. Obama didn’t need to run through this preamble. Everyone knew the litany of his achievements. Foremost on that day, with the fresh news about al-Awlaki, it seemed the president was pondering the drone program that he had expanded so dramatically and with such lethal results, as well as the death of Bin Laden, which was still resonating worldwide months later. “Turns out I’m really good at killing people,” Obama said quietly, “Didn’t know that was gonna be a strong suit of mine.” Al-Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, who was an American citizen, was killed in a separate drone strike two weeks after his father. “My grandson was killed by his own government,” the teenager’s grandfather Nasser al-Awlaki wrote in a New York Times op-ed in July. “The Obama administration must answer for its actions and be held accountable.” Obama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, has overseen the expansion of the CIA’s targeted killing program, which the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates has killed between 2,528 and 3,648 individuals in Pakistan since 2004. That organization also estimates that between 416 and 948 of those killed in drone strikes were civilians — an estimate disputed by the Obama administration. Among those civilians, according to Amnesty International, was a Pakistani grandmother killed alongside 18 civilian laborers in a 2012 strike. The grandmother’s family came to Washington, D.C., last month to testify before Congress and urge an end to drone warfare. Despite the president’s pledge to be more transparent about the drone program, the administration has continued to face criticism for its secrecy on the legal case for the strikes. The Huffington Post’s Matt Sledge reported last month that a coalition of human rights and journalism groups is putting pressure on the administration to release the opinions that underpin the program. “While the government has an obligation to protect properly and appropriately classified information, democracy does not thrive when our national security programs and the intelligence community’s actions are shrouded in secrecy,” the groups wrote in the letter. The groups hope the Obama administration will take the concrete step of instructing the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to release the legal opinions that provide the foundation for the U.S.’ drone war and the NSA’s surveillance operations. In a May speech at the National Defense University, Obama defended the use of drones. “Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes,” Obama said.
|
|