Archive for October 2016

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Trump beats the Big Fix in Vegas

October 20, 2016

Trump beats the Big Fix in Vegas, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, October 20, 2016

Donald Trump had a good night, here in Vegas at the third and final debate, but was it good enough – would anything be good enough – to stop the Clinton Machine?

The Clinton Machine, since time began, is a colossus that is prepared to run over and demolish everything in its path by use of an unholy alliance – a compliant media in cahoots with government agencies that have been fully corrupted to meet Hillary’s every need, truth and integrity be damned.

Trump is right to be worried about playing against loaded dice.

Americans ought to be worried that the White House may be won by means of theft.  FBI files and Wikileaks provide evidence of double-dealing on a massive scale.

Trump started off slowly but he got stronger, much stronger as the debate moved along and he did respond on the question as to whether he actually did take it that the system is rigged against him. He said that the media are “one-sided against my campaign. They even admit that it’s the case.”

Then, on the topic of women and the flurry of accusations against him, Trump pivoted to add: “That’s all fiction started by Hillary, just as her campaign hired thugs to commit violence at my rallies. That is a fact now out in the open.” Trump spoke in declarative sentences.

Clinton spoke in prepared paragraphs that amounted to rehearsed speeches, and when finally he’d had enough of her barbs, remarked, “Such a nasty woman.”

If that wasn’t the quote of the night, then it was Trump saying, “Given what she did destroying those emails, Hillary Clinton has no right to be running for president.”

Trump was unsparing on her email scandals, noting that a four star general was going to jail for committing the same offenses but to a far lesser degree.

The crowd in Vegas gasped when Trump said, “I’ll keep you in suspense,” as to whether he would support her if she won.

He left that open-ended by calling attention to all the corruption being exposed against her through Wikileaks.

He accused her Clinton Foundation of being a “sleazy operation” that took “millions from countries like Saudi Arabia where they throw gays off buildings.”

He turned to her directly: “Why don’t you give back the money? It would be a great gesture.”

Moderator Chris Wallace challenged her on the Foundation, but she passed to make a speech about something else

This writer finds her a nightmare to quote. The mind wanders for all that political gobbledygook. Throughout, she emphasized her experience nationally and on a global scale and, in political posturing at its finest, mentioned everything she would do for women and children and yes, “undocumented people.”

“You had 30 years and you did nothing. All talk, no action,” said Trump.

He blamed her (and Obama) for American failures in Iraq and Syria. “You created ISIS,” he said. “They are now in 32 countries, thanks to you.”

As for the Iran deal, and likewise bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian migrants, “Wait till you see what’s coming,” he said. “ISIS for sure.”

On our overseas ventures in general, Trump said, “We’re being played, by China, Russia, Iran, everybody.”

Trump had a good night, even a terrific night. He was calm, but firm, and did not fall for the usual traps.

Clinton, in a word, was boring. She came across as a prepackaged politician, prepared and scripted to the point of being mechanical and cute.

Sixteen months ago a gambler rolled the dice and shot for all the works. That gambler was Donald Trump. He should have remembered Rule #1.

The House always wins. In political terms the House is the Clinton Machine.

Last night Donald Trump beat the House.

Categories: 2016 elections, 2016 presidential debates, Clinton corruption, Clinton cover ups, Clinton obstructions of justice, Clintons and morality, Foreign policy, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, WikiLeaks
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Has World War 3 Already Started?

October 20, 2016

Has World War 3 Already Started?

by Nick Giambruno, Senior Editor

Source: Has World War 3 Already Started? | International Man

It took 3 million soldiers, 3,000 tanks, 7,000 artillery pieces, and 2,500 aircraft…

“Operation Barbarossa” was the code name for Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.

It was the largest military operation in human history.

The Nazis had already conquered most of Europe. Hitler had grown overconfident from his recent military victories. Now he was hunting for big game… Stalin’s USSR.

Throughout history, many European invaders, including Napoleon, suffered monumental defeats when they took on Russia. Despite this, Hitler thought he could succeed where they had failed.

The idea was to inflict a total defeat on the Soviets in a matter of months, before the notoriously brutal Russian winter began.

At first, it looked like the Germans might succeed. The Soviets were taken by surprise and were disorganized.

But those initial victories wouldn’t be enough. Thanks to stubborn resistance and a seemingly inexhaustible supply of Soviet troops, Operation Barbarossa stalled.

The Germans didn’t make it to Moscow before winter. The ruthless cold weather would prove to be a far more effective weapon than anything in the Soviet arsenal. Hitler’s hopes of quickly taking out the USSR perished in the brutal cold. It ultimately turned the tide of the war against Germany.

But the Soviet victory cost millions of lives. By the end of the war, the Soviets had lost over 20 million people. Some estimate they lost many millions more. By comparison, the U.S. lost around 400,000 people.

So, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Russians get a little prickly when a foreign military starts marching toward their borders.

And recently… for the first time since Operation Barbarossa, German tanks are once again advancing on Russia’s border.

You probably haven’t heard this extraordinary piece of news. That’s because the mass media has basically ignored and obscured it. They’ve been busy covering far more important things… like transgender issues and Kim Kardashian’s latest stunt.

That’s why I want to tell you about Operation Anaconda 2016.

It’s the largest war game in Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. It’s essentially a rehearsal to secure a quick NATO victory in the event of war with Russia.

It was launched from Warsaw, Poland, recently and involves 31,000 NATO troops.

Operation Anaconda 2016 is one of the most important stories you’re not hearing about. It shows how perilously close the world is to another global war.

I found out about Operation Anaconda 2016 while in Warsaw with Doug Casey earlier this year.

(Incidentally, Poland is one of the cheapest, enjoyable countries I’ve ever been to. A 30-minute taxi ride from the middle of Warsaw to the airport is only $5. You’ll be hard-pressed to find an entrée in one of the nicest restaurants for over $15.

Poland does not use the European currency, the euro. It has its own currency, the zloty. And the zloty’s weakness is a big reason Poland is so inexpensive today. By the way, “zloty” means “gold” in Polish. But the currency has no tie to gold. It’s just a paper currency, like the dollar and euro are.)

Operation Anaconda 2016 is controversial even within NATO. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier recently said:

Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken. We are well advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation.

Although Steinmeier said Operation Anaconda 2016 is symbolic, he failed to mention exactly what it symbolizes.

First, an anaconda is a giant snake. It kills its prey by squeezing it. From the Russian perspective, they’re the ones who feel squeezed. This is precisely what the U.S. has been doing by fomenting so-called colored revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia (both on Russia’s periphery) and trying to absorb them into NATO.

Second, this unprecedented “tank parade” on Russia’s borders symbolizes nothing less than World War 3.

(Doug Casey: It’s provocative, and actually quite insane. The Western media paints the Russians as the aggressors, which—let me shock you by saying this—is the opposite of the truth. Russia is an economic minnow, producing nothing but oil and gas, and mostly unprofitably, at current prices. Its population is in permanent decline, and it’s actually a disintegrating empire with a dozen secession movements. Its only serious industrial sector is manufacturing weapons, but even the most advanced Sukhois and MiGs (like the F-22 and F-35) are artifacts of a bygone era. The Russians aren’t in a position to threaten anyone—entirely apart from the fact that conquering neighboring countries no longer makes sense. In today’s world, you’re no longer acquiring an asset to be looted, but taking on a liability.

As for NATO, it’s outlived its usefulness by over 25 years. The huge military bureaucracy is just a hammer in search of a nail. It should be abolished before it gets everyone in a lot of trouble.)

Russian President Vladimir Putin has reacted to Operation Anaconda 2016 with alarm. At a recent press conference, he warned Western mainstream media journalists that the world is sleepwalking into World War 3, saying:

We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know. It’s only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. Your people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger—this is what worries me.

How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore.

U.S. politicians like to use Putin as a piñata to show how tough they are. Hillary Clinton has declared Putin to be the new Hitler. This is the kind of thinking that fueled Operation Anaconda 2016.

Now, we’re not referees charged with deciding which political players are good guys and which are bad guys.

However, the portrait of Putin as a Hitler or a crazy man leading his country toward disaster—the picture you get from the mainstream media and from many politicians—is suitable only for propaganda posters.

I don’t give two you-know-whats about what happens in Eastern Europe, except to the extent it might spark World War 3 and cause us to get vaporized in a nuclear exchange.

Albert Einstein once said, “I know not with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.”

Editor’s Note: It’s always been true, as Bourne said, that “war is the health of the State.” But it’s especially true when economic times get tough. That’s because governments like to blame their problems on outsiders; even an imagined foreign threat tends to unify opinions around those of the leaders.

Since economies around the world are all weakening, and political leaders are all similar in essential mindset, there’s good reason to believe the trend toward World War 3 is accelerating.

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can do to practically change the trajectory of this trend in motion. The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible and even profit from the situation.

That’s exactly why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent video. Click here to watch it now.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Norway Surveillance Photos Show Russian Aircraft Carrier Flotilla On Route To Syria

October 20, 2016

Norway Surveillance Photos Show Russian Aircraft Carrier Flotilla On Route To Syria

by Tyler Durden
Oct 19, 2016 2:08 PM

Source: Norway Surveillance Photos Show Russian Aircraft Carrier Flotilla On Route To Syria | Zero Hedge

One month ago we reported that in the latest naval escalation involving the US and Russia, one which would make the eastern Mediterranean a carbon copy of what it looked like three years ago during the peak of 2013 Syrian conflict which almost ended in war between Russia and the US, Russia announced it would deploy its only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov to the coast of Syria.

Russia’s defence minister said Wednesday that Moscow was dispatching its flagship aircraft carrier to bolster its forces in the eastern Mediterranean off Syria. The Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier would be sent to join Russia’s current naval deployment there, minister Sergei Shoigu said during a televised meeting.

 

“At the moment the Russian task force in the Eastern Mediterranean consists of no fewer than six combat ships and three or four logistic ships from all fleets” the minister said adding that “to build up the group’s combat capabilities we plan to reinforce it with an Admiral Kuznetsov-led group,” Shoigu told a meeting of the Defense Ministry’s board. He added that the Russian Navy has been permanently present in the Eastern Mediterranean since 2013.

Now, according to a report by the Norwegian military which released pictures taken by surveillance aircraft, we know that the Kuznetsov accompanied by a fleet of Russian warships, is currently on its way to Syria and is sailing in international waters off the coast of Norway near Trondheim. Photos of the vessels, which include the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and the Pyotr Velikiy battle cruiser, were taken near Andoya island, in northern Norway on Monday.

As reported by Reuters , a spokesman for the Norwegian military intelligence service said the country’s armed forces frequently releases such footage, while newspaper VG quoted General Morten Haga Lunde, head of the service, as saying the eight ships involved “will probably play a role in the deciding battle for Aleppo”. According to Russia’s TASS state news agency, the aircraft carrier would carry 15 Su-33 and MIG-29K jet fighters and over 10 Ka-52K, Ka-27 and ??-31 helicopters.

The naval group which includes the carrier and its escort of seven other Russian ships, is the most powerful Russian naval task force to sail in northern Europe since 2014, Russia’s Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily reports. The carrier can carry more than 50 aircraft and its weapons systems include Granit anti-ship cruise missiles.

Next in the flotilla, in terms of firepower, is the Russian nuclear-powered battle cruiser Peter the Great.

The Kirov-class cruiser Peter the Great escorts the carrier

As BBC adds, a Norwegian Lockheed P-3 Orion reconnaissance plane, monitoring the force, photographed the ships. MiG-29 Fulcrum jets and combat helicopters were visible on the carrier’s deck.

The other Russian surface ships in the group are: two large anti-submarine warships – the Severomorsk and Vice-Admiral Kulakov – and four support vessels.

Several of the task force ships are shown in this Norwegian photo

Norway did not appear to be fazed by the passage of the Russian flotilla in international waters: “The Kuznetsov Task Group situation is normal routine for the Norwegian military,” said Norwegian military spokesperson Maj Elisabeth Eikeland. “The only unusual thing is the amount of ships,” she told the BBC.

The group will beef up the Russian naval presence off the Syrian coast – Russia already has about 10 ships there. During its bombardment of anti-government rebels in Syria that force has fired cruise missiles.

In an article headed “Moscow’s Maritime Fist” the Russian armed forces channel TV Zvezda said several submarines would probably move from the Atlantic to escort the flotilla.

Meanwhile, commenting on the Russian flotilla, a Royal Navy spokesperson said: “UK and Nato assets routinely monitor warships from other nations when they enter our area of interest and this will be no different.”

More importantly, when the group reaches Syria the Russian navy will rival the firepower of the US Sixth Fleet in the region, Russian media report. As such, the possibility of a provocation on either side rises substantially. This is particularly notable in light of the recent report that having launched a military assault on Yemen due to alleged attacks by Houthi rebels on a US warship traveling in the Red Sea, subsequently the Pentagon admitted it was no longer confident the attack had originated from Yemen, suggesting the failed missile attack may have been in fact a false flag, potentially originating out of Saudi Arabia.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Third Debate: ‘What Kind of Country Are We Going to Be?

October 20, 2016

The Third Debate: ‘What Kind of Country Are We Going to Be? Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, October 20, 2016

rd

The peculiar self-contradiction of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was on abundant display Wednesday night during her third and last presidential debate with Donald Trump: running as the anointed heir of a two-term president in whose administration she served, she has to maintain both that everything is going great and that the nation in general  is in drastic need of repair. Above all, amid all the bluster and platitudes, she and Trump took up opposing sides on virtually all the major fault lines of contemporary America, emphasizing yet again that this election is for all the marbles: either the U.S. will continue on the road to socialist internationalism, or recover a sense of itself. This may be the last time that question is at stake in a presidential election.

“What kind of country are we going to be?,” Hillary Clinton asked near the beginning of the debate, and that indeed was the question. The Supreme Court, she told us, needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on side of the wealthy. What would a Supreme Court that stood on the side of the people, rather than the plutocrats, look like? Why, of course it would be one that said no to Citizen’s United, and yes to Marriage Equality and Roe vs. Wade: as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, anyone who stands for traditional values is simply not of the people, or any people she has any interest in representing. Nor, presumably, among Hillary Clinton’s people are those who respect and want to uphold the Second Amendment – in which she firmly believes, she assured us Wednesday night, as long as it is gutted of any actual substance.

Trump, on the other hand, affirmed that he would appoint justices who would interpret the Constitution as written, repeal Roe v. Wade and return the abortion question to the states, and protect gun rights. Chicago, he pointed out, has some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, yet also has more gun violence than any other city. This was a telling point; in response, Clinton promised she would give us both the Second Amendment and “reform,” but did not explain how this sleight-of-hand would be performed.

The situation was the same when the topic turned to immigration. Trump spoke of the need for strong borders, pointing to the drugs pouring into the country over the Mexican border as the reason why a border wall was needed, and declaring: “We have no country if we have no border.” In response, Clinton spoke about not wanting to send illegal immigrant parents away from their children who are citizens – an answer that may have tugged at Leftist heartstrings, but left the drug problem unaddressed.

Clinton danced all night. When moderator Chris Wallace quoted her earlier statement saying she wanted open borders, Clinton turned the question into one about Wikileaks, and pressed Trump over whether he would condemn Russia, which she insisted was behind the leaks, for meddling in an American election. “That was a great pivot,” Trump noted drily, “from her wanting open borders.”

Once Clinton had brought up Putin, Trump bored in, charging: “She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her in every way.” In response, Clinton promised to work with our allies all over the world. That highlighted her campaign’s nagging contradiction again, leaving unanswered the question of why the world is so aflame today after eight years of Barack Obama, who came into office with similar promises to mend America’s relationships with friends and foes alike globally – promises that were taken so seriously that he won the Nobel Peace Prize before he had done anything at all. (What’s left to give President Hillary Clinton as she begins herefforts to bring peace to our troubled world? Sainthood?)

There was so much that he had heard before. Clinton promised to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Some enterprising and independent-minded historian should research the history of that shopworn phrase, used by so very many Democratic presidential candidates before Hillary. Who was the first to use it? Certainly not Barack Obama, although he made the same promise, or John Kerry or Al Gore, who did as well, or Hillary’s husband. Was it Mike Dukakis? Jimmy Carter? Harry Truman? Woodrow Wilson? Grover Cleveland? How far back does this phrase go, and why, after eight years of Barack Obama, are the poor soaked rich still not paying their fair share? If he couldn’t make them pony up, how will Hillary accomplish it?

That was the rub, on all the issues Trump and Clinton discussed Wednesday evening. She pledged to eradicate the Islamic State, whereupon Trump noted that it was the vacuum created in Iraq by the precipitous Obama/Clinton withdrawal from Iraq that led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Trump pointed out that the U.S. is pouring money into Syrian rebel groups of doubtful reliability, and noted that if they overthrow Assad (“and he is a bad guy”), Syria might end up with a regime’s worse than Assad, and noted that the chaos in Syria has “caused the great migration, the great Trojan Horse,” with “many ISIS-aligned” coming into the U.S. “Thanks a lot Hillary,” he said acidly, “thanks a lot for doing a great job.”

Indeed. If she didn’t get all this right when she was Secretary of State, how can Americans be confident she will get it right the next time, particularly when all she is offering is more of the same, more of the same failed foreign policies that have gotten the world into the fix it’s in today — with the centerpiece being the denial of the nature, magnitude and motivating ideology of the jihad threat?

That is what is ultimately the choice Americans face: more of the same, or a drastic change of course. If Hillary Clinton is elected president, and the mainstream media is in a frenzy to do all it can to make sure that she is, Americans will at very least know what they’re getting, and a great many of them will applaud it. Ultimately, however, politically correct fantasies will collapse under the weight of reality. If that happens while she is president, there will be more of the same in another way as well: many Americans who applauded her platitudes, generalities, and appeals to sentiment on Wednesday night will be looking for ways to blame the Republicans.

Categories: 2016 elections, 2016 presidential debates, America, Donald Trump, Foreign policy, Hillary Clinton
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

DNC Chair Unravels During Megyn Kelly Interview, Claims ‘Persecution’ Over Accusation of Feeding Clinton Town Hall Question

October 20, 2016

DNC Chair Unravels During Megyn Kelly Interview, Claims ‘Persecution’ Over Accusation of Feeding Clinton Town Hall Question, Washington Free Beacon, , October 20, 2016

Interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile struggled to answer Fox News host Megyn Kelly’s questions Wednesday night about a video showing Democratic activists discussing how to incite violence at Donald Trump rallies and whether she tipped off the Clinton campaign to a question before a CNN town hall.

Kelly started the interview by asking Brazile about the recent Project Veritas video, which shows Scott Foval, a Democratic organizer, discussing how planted party activists instigated fights at a Trump rally in Chicago earlier this year. The other person in the video is Bob Creamer, a long time Chicago-based Democratic operative who had been contracted by the DNC for the 2016 election.

Brazile told Kelly that the contract between the DNC and Creamer’s group was not signed until June 2016 and then tried to discredit James O’Keefe, the man who made and distributed the video.

“When you have a convicted criminal sneaking around your office with imposters that try to—” Brazile said before Kelly cut her off.

“Are you referring to Bob Creamer, the head of Democracy Partners?” Kelly asked.

Brazile said she was referring to O’Keefe. Kelly then informed the viewers of Creamer’s conviction of fraud and also his relationship with the White House, which he has visited upwards of 300 times since Obama came to office. Creamer has announced his resignation from Democracy Partners after the video was released.

Brazile appeared visibly uncomfortable with the conversation and pivoted to Hillary Clinton’s performance in Wednesday night’s debate. She then accused Kelly of “feeling strongly” about the O’Keefe video, to which Kelly said that she “had said nothing about her feelings.”

Kelly then asked Brazile whether she could verify the veracity of the video, but the DNC chair claimed the videos are doctored.

“You’re dodging,” Kelly interjected.

“I’m not dodging. I don’t play dodgeball. I play basketball,” Brazile responded.

Kelly moved on and brought up the revelation from the hacked WikiLeaks emails that Brazile passed along a question to the Clinton campaign before a CNN town hall in which Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) also participated.

“How did you get that question, Donna?” Kelly asked.

Brazile claimed that she “did not get any questions from CNN.”

“Where did you get it?” Kelly asked.

“As a Christian woman I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted. Your information is totally false,” Brazile said. She would not verify the content of the email and instead pointed out that the emails were stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Kelly did not let Brazile ignore the question and proceeded to read off a statement from CNN’s Jake Tapper in which he said that passing along the town hall question was unethical and upsetting.

“Who gave you that question?” Kelly again asked.

“I am not going to validate falsified information,” Brazile answered. “I have my documents. I have my files. Thank God I have not had my personal emails ripped off from me.”

“In my 14 years at CNN I have never received anything,” Brazile later asserted. “I never get documents from CNN.”

Kelly pressed her repeatedly about why the email shows her passing along the question.

“When you said from time to time I get the questions in advance what were you referring to? Because in that email you offered the exact question that one of the moderators, Roland Martin, asked the next day,” Kelly asked, quoting the email.

“A lot of those emails I would not give the time of day. I have seen so many doctored emails,” Brazile said. “If there is anything I have I will share.”

Categories: 2016 elections, 2016 presidential debates, Clinton campaign, Democrat National Committee, Donald Trump and vote fraud, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, Project Veritas, Vote fraud, WikiLeaks
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

No, Trump Should Not Accept the Results of a Possibly Stolen Election

October 20, 2016

No, Trump Should Not Accept the Results of a Possibly Stolen Election, American Thinker, Selwyn Duke, October 20, 2016

Crooks on the left, cowards on the right. Where do we go to find integrity?

One of the most talked about parts of last night’s final presidential debate was Donald Trump’s statement that he’d let us know on election night if he’d accept the balloting results. An NBC commentator expressed her bubble-headed opinion that the statement lost him the election. Worse still, “conservative” commentator John Podhoretz wrote that Trump’s comment was “a shocking and cravenly irresponsible thing to say, the sort of thing that threatens to rend our national fabric, and for that alone, Trump has earned his place in the history of American ignominy.” But Podhoretz’ criticism is what’s shocking and cravenly irresponsible — and reflective of profound ignorance.

Are some of us living in an alternate-reality universe? We just saw NYC’s Democrat election commissioner, Alan Schulkin, caught on video admitting “there’s a lot of vote fraud,” as he talked about how people are “bussed” around to vote illegally. This was followed by a Project Veritas sting video showing a Democrat operative slug named Scott Foval giving advice on how to commit the fraud, saying that it has been going on for 50 years and that it “doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this m****rf****r.”

There was also the WikiLeaks released email showing that Clinton allies, also Democrats, presumably, believe that Obama forces committed vote fraud in 2008. Then there’s another WikiLeaks email in which Clinton campaign manager John Podesta wrote that “if you show up on Election Day with a drivers [sic] license with a picture [and 12 states and D.C. allow illegals to get licenses], attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.” Add to this the 2012 Pew study showing that approximately “24 million — one of every eight — voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters. [And] [a]pproximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state,” and what does it add up to?

Reality # 1: There is vote fraud.

Reality # 2: Since there’s vote fraud, it’s possible an election — especially a close one — could be stolen.

Yet the three-little-monkey coward-cons think that, somehow, it’s noble and healthy to view a possibly stolen election and say “Nothing to see here; move along.” Maybe if we pretend hard enough, everything will be okay.

I have no idea how Trump’s statement will play out, given that he didn’t explain the matter well and we have coward-cons doing the jobs (real) Americans wouldn’t do, but I suspect the average person doesn’t share Podhoretz’ concern over violation of a twisted view of propriety. But here’s the answer I would have given debate moderator Chris Wallace when he stated, to Trump, that we have a “tradition” in this country of a peaceful transfer of power:

Yes, sir, and we have another American tradition: it’s called the “rule of law.” And when you suspect an election has been stolen, and allow it to go unanswered, you become complicit in the undermining of our rule of law. Moreover, vote fraud that swings an election thwarts the people’s will. You may not care about that. Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t care about that. But if I have reasonable suspicion that the Nov. 8 contest has been stolen, I will stand against the thwarting of the rule of law and the people’s will — even if I’m the only person in America to do it.

I cannot tell you how disgusting I find the coward-cons’ cravenness. It is, sadly, a common failing of man to prefer to rationalize, or stick one’s head in the sand, than to face up to tough challenges and hard truths. This is the mentality causing coward-cons to tell Sheriff Joe Arpaio not to look into Obama’s birth certificate and judges to refuse to hand down anti-establishment rulings for fear of opening “that can of worms.” But tolerating criminality gets you more criminality. This is, mind you, a hallmark of Third World nations. Corruption is rife, tolerated, and many pretend it isn’t going on. You want to descend fully into Third Worldism? Listen to the coward-cons.

What the coward-cons miss, in their infinite lack of wisdom, is that unanswered corruption means our national fabric is already being rent.  And their prescription is to allow corruption to fester, to grow, to become status quo? It’s as with cancer: attacking it early involves some pain, perhaps enduring nauseating treatments or an operation to excise a malignant tumor. But ignoring it, refusing to face reality, means a metastasis that will consume the whole body and lead, ultimately, to death. Tolerate a bit of visible rending now — or risk having nothing left to rend later.

The coward-cons are the people who get elected to office…and then get nothing done; they’re the weak sisters who never saw a culture-war battle they couldn’t lose. If you suspect your vote has been negated by electoral fraud, would you want those charged with ensuring the system’s integrity to look the other way? Or would you want the matter sifted to the very bottom?

If the coward-cons would choose the former, then they’ve earned their place in the history of American ignominy.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, 2016 presidential debates, Clinton campaign, Democrat National Committee, Donald Trump and vote fraud, double standards
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

US general suspects Iran in Yemen missile launches

October 20, 2016

Source: US general suspects Iran in Yemen missile launches | TheHill

Getty Images

By Kristina Wong – 10/19/16 01:26 PM EDT

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East said he suspects Iran is playing a role in recent missile launches by Houthi rebels in Yemen against U.S. ships in the Red Sea. 

“I do think that Iran is playing a role in some of this. They have a relationship with the Houthis, so I do suspect there is a role in that,” said U.S. Central Command leader Army Gen. Joseph Votel at the Center for American Progress.

It was the closest a U.S. official has come to directly attributing the missile attacks to Iran, which supports the Houthis in their civil war against the embattled regime.

Last week, U.S. ships were fired upon at least two times while in the Red Sea off the coast of Yemen, prompting a U.S. destroyer to destroy three radar sites that U.S. officials say they believe were used in the missile launches.

The Houthis are rebels in Yemen who ousted the Western-backed government from the capital of Sana’a in September 2014.

Officials only said the missile launches were from “Houthi-controlled territory” in Yemen and said they did not know who actually pulled the trigger, or who exactly was to blame.

Attributing fault to Iran for the missile launches would raise the question of what the U.S. would do in response, at a time when the Obama administration has been trying to smooth relations with Iran.

The missile launches at the USS Mason, USS Ponce and USS San Antonio came after a Saudi strike hit a Houthi funeral, killing 140 mourners, including a number of senior Houthi leaders.

The Houthis receive weapons and military support from Iran, while the ousted regime receives military support from a Saudi-led Arab coalition conducting airstrikes against the Houthis.

Votel said the former Yemeni regime, under President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has also been backing the Houthis rebels, may have played a role as well.

The Pentagon said it is still trying to figure out whether there was an additional missile launch on Saturday, after the U.S. destroyed the radar sites.

“What we are trying to do is make sure we understand this as much as we can so we can properly attribute what is happening and understand how these attacks are taking place and, more importantly, how the decisions are being made to launch these attacks so we can take action against that,” Votel said.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Gingrich on Undercover Video of Dem Operatives: ‘Where is the FBI?’

October 20, 2016

Gingrich on Undercover Video of Dem Operatives: ‘Where is the FBI?’ Fox News via YouTube, October 18, 2016

Categories: Clinton campaign, Democrat National Committee, FBI, Project Veritas, Trump protests, Trump rallies, Vote fraud
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

UK Cleric and High School Rector: “No Son of a Bastard Will Remain Alive After Swearing at My Prophet”

October 19, 2016

UK Cleric and High School Rector: “No Son of a Bastard Will Remain Alive After Swearing at My Prophet”, Counter Jihad, Bruce Cornibe, October 19, 2016

shah-sadruddin

In the West governments have the duty to protect free speech as well as other freedoms (exceptions for reasonable censorship – for example, sexually explicit content). The point is that ideas and concepts should be up for debate in order for society to learn and advance. Unfortunately, in much of the Islamic world certain ideas are not only prohibited by they can be punishable up to a death sentence. Let’s take a look at some examples of Muslim support for blasphemy laws.

First, a case in the UK reveals how Mufti Shah Sadruddin, a prominent figure among Bangladeshi Brits, has advocated for the death of those who insult Islam. This is the same Sadruddin who apparently ran for a “local councillor” position a couple years ago, the UK’s Mirror reports:

Footage has emerged of Mufti Shah Sadruddin making a shocking hate speech in London – a year before he tried to become a local councillor.

In his hate-filled rant, he rages against atheists and suggests those who insult his religion should be killed.

The shocking comments were unearthed ahead of a documentary about the abuse, violence and hatred suffered by some Muslims who choose to leave the religion.

Raging against non-believers, Sadruddin says in the video clip: “No son of a b*****d will remain alive after swearing at my prophet.”

The comment was filmed a year before he stood as a Conservativecandidate for Newham council in 2014.

In the run-up to the election, he claimed: “I believe in equality, I believe in fairness, I believe in loving the human race and I hate to hate anybody.”

So basically equality, fairness, and love are being defined by Sharia standards or Sadruddin is blatantly lying in order to advance his Islamist agenda in the UK. An ICM Unlimited survey released earlier this year shows that other British Muslim adults (18 years and older) also have particular sensitivities in matters regarding Islam’s prophet. For example, when asked: “In your opinion, should any publication have the right to publish pictures of the Prophet?” – 4% of the Muslims surveyed said “Yes” while 78% responded by saying “No[.]” And that question just deals with simply posting a picture – whether it’s a positive or negative portrayal of Muhammad is irrelevant here! Another question the survey asked reads: “And in your opinion, should any publication have the right to publish pictures which make fun of the Prophet?” – 1% of Muslims said “Yes” while 87% said “No[.]” While no one who is serious about their faith typically enjoys when other people insult or mock one’s beliefs, the fact that just the mere drawing of Muhammad causes such ire within the Islamic community is a real cause for concern within the UK.

A second case reveals how blasphemy laws are not only enforced in Pakistan but they also apply to non-Muslims as well – and an influential segment of Pakistanis support such laws. A recent article from the Pakistan Christian Post shows that “about 150 top Muslim Clerics (Muftis) issued a religious decree and demanded from Government to hang Asia bibi and all other prisoners of blasphemy laws and also demanded speedy trial of pending cases of blasphemy in Pakistani courts.” Asia Bibi is the Christian mother of five children who has been behind bars since 2009, and is facing the death penalty because of “allegations of blasphemy.” This shouldn’t come as a huge surprise considering a 2013 Pew Research Center article shows that 81% of Muslims in Pakistan believe “sharia is the revealed word of God[.]” The same Pew article found that “[a]mong Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land” (84% in Pakistan) about one third (34%) of those believe Sharia should apply to non-Muslims as well.

Another case exposes how even in America there’s an influential sector of Muslims that essentially help enforce de-facto blasphemy laws by stoking anti-blasphemy anger within the Islamic community when a Muslim Reformer wants to be truthful about the life of Muhammad. Recently, Muslim Reformer (and writer at Counterjihad.com), Shireen Qudosi, testified in front of a House Homeland Security Committee about the subject of radical Islam. At one point during the hearing Qudosi explained how Muhammad switched from being non-violent to violent during his “prophethood[,]” while he and his followers conducted jihad on their adversaries – however, CAIR clipped the segment into a video and basically suggested that Qudosi insulted the Islamic prophet (video here). Not only does the Hamas linked CAIR (professed to be “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties organization”) know that such a video stirs up animosities within the Muslim community that threatens the very life of Qudosi, but they are also trying to shut down any reasonable analysis of Muhammad’s life. One would like to see CAIR try and refute the fact that Muhammad did wage jihad, which included the vicious killings of innocent people. How long are Islamists going to keep painting Muhammad as a peaceful saint when the Quran and Sunnah tell a different story? We must be able to discuss these things without the fear of physical retaliation for offending somebody’s religion.

Categories: Britain and Islam, CAIR, Islam - submission, Islam and human rights, Islamic integration, Islamic reformation, Islamic terrorism, Islamisation, Islamists in America, Islamists in Britain, Sharia law
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Article On Syrian Opposition Website: The Political Solution Is Unfeasible; We Should Ignite All-Out War

October 19, 2016

Article On Syrian Opposition Website: The Political Solution Is Unfeasible; We Should Ignite All-Out War, MEMRI, October 19, 2016

‘Ali Hamidi, a Syrian journalist opposed to the regime, called on regime opponents to abandon the political solution and ignite an all-out war in Syrian order to force the world to step in and end it. Writing on a Syrian opposition website, he said that the brutal offensive waged in recent weeks by the Assad regime and by Russia against the rebel-held eastern neighborhoods of Aleppo is nothing less than a holocaust and slaughter for its own sake. He leveled harsh criticism at the international community, headed by the U.S., for the situation in the city, saying that their failure to intervene does not stem from helplessness or a lack of influence but rather from a lack of willingness to stop Assad and Russia.

The following are excerpts from his article:[1]

30329Devastation in Aleppo (image: Aljazeera.com)

“It would be absurd to write anything or make any comment about the all-out war of extermination currently being waged by Russia and the Assad regime against the ‘besieged neighborhoods’ of eastern Aleppo. This is [nothing less than] a holocaust; it is the ongoing indiscriminate killing of civilians without any military justification… Its objective was and is nothing but killing for its own sake. Many of us have made efforts to find definitions and reasons for this [military] action. We have heard, for example, that its objective is ethnic and sectarian cleansing; that it is an attempt to pressure the civilians in eastern Aleppo to leave or to disassociate themselves from the militants; that it is a holy war against the Sunnis, and many other analyses that are belied by the scenes of bombing and indiscriminate killing. At this point analyses and theories fail, and the main [insight] that emerges is that [it is nothing but] the killing of anyone opposed to the Assad regime…

“Can we really say today that the world is helpless? I think that would be the greatest and falsest compliment we could bestow upon this world – for the international community was not, is not and will never be helpless. It has ability and influence, if it only wanted [to use them]. But the simple [truth is] that nobody wants to stop Assad and Russia – neither the U.S. nor Europe nor anyone else…

“In the UN Security Council session on Aleppo [on September 25, 2016], UN envoy to Syria Staffan de Mistura expressed concern about the firing of ‘[gas] canisters’ from [rebel-held] eastern Aleppo into the [regime-held] western [parts of the city]. But he did not mention the kinds of missiles and mortars fired on the people [of the city], nor did he mention the over 300 victims [that are killed] every day as he delivered this miserable speech. Even more disturbing were the statements made by the representatives of the permanent Security Council members, who parrot hollow words of commiseration that are nothing but humiliating pleas [directed at] Russia, beseeching it to do its best to restrain Assad and restore the fragile ceasefire…

“Are we not being naïve when we wait for others to make their considerations, and hand them the keys to our cities [while we sit around,] waiting to be bombed? We wait for Barack Obama to [formulate] a policy [on Syria], when everyone is quite convinced that his departing administration will do nothing for those who are being killed in Aleppo and elsewhere, and that he and his team are not really doing anything to topple the Assad regime or to compete with Russia and Iran by supporting [the Syrian opposition]. If this is the position of the [world] leadership, there is no point in expecting anything from the countries it leads.

“Eastern Aleppo is in flames and its people are dying, and the entire world is party to this crime. Therefore, all the efforts that are currently being invested in renewing the dialogue with the Assad regime must be diverted to starting a war – an all-out war that will burn everyone. Then the world will hurry to stop it.

“The statements we hear, that only the political solution exists, are not realistic in the least. In fact, even the Assad regime does not accept them. Hence it would be folly to continue pinning our hopes on political [solutions] or on the ‘friendly’ countries. [Such suggestions] are tantamount to asking the people of Aleppo to surrender [just] in hope of being allowed to negotiating for the lives of those who still survive…

“To those who ask what alternative exists, [I say]: Why shouldn’t everyone who is dedicated to the cause [of saving syria] divert his efforts from the political channel to looking for weapons, even on the black market, so as to deliver them to the fighters in order to start an [all-out] war[?]”

 

Endnote:

[1] Orient-news.net, September 26, 2016.

Categories: Aleppo Syria, Assad, Obama and Assad, Obama and Syria, Russia - Syrian war
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »