Day: June 3, 2018

BREAKING: American Troops JUST DEPLOYED!!!

Please Subscribe: https://goo.gl/DodZjS
Source: https://goo.gl/Mz1E9c
Baghdad, IRAQ – The U.S.-led Coalition has sent additional military reinforcements to northeast of Syria, in the wake of remarks by the Syrian President threatening the Syrian Democratic Forces, an informed Kurdish source said on Sunday.

Speaking on condition of anonymity to BasNews website, the source said deploying French troops “in Deir az-Zour as well as the air cover by the U.S.-Coalition shows readiness to respond to whatever violation by the region against its allies, the Syrian Democratic Forces.”
“France recently deployed missiles in Deir az-Zour countryside, fearing progress by the regime forces or its militias against eastern Euphrates region, controlled by SDF,” he added.

Iraqi News reports that the missiles, according to the source, “were previously used against the locations of the regime or its militias inside Deir az-Zour.”

The U.S. State Department previously said it does not seek fighting Syrian or Iranian troops, however, it will use necessary and proportional force to defend the U.S. troops or its partners in war against Islamic State in Syria.

In a televised interview on Thursday, Assad expressed readiness for negotiations with the Syrian Democratic Forces, or else he would use force against them to get out of the regions they control.

Confrontations broke out recently between SDF and Syrian regime forces in Deir az-Zour, east of the country, in the wake of progress by the latter toward Eastern Euphrates.
US troops are not leaving Syria and any attempt to remove them by force will be met with an armed response, a top Pentagon official said, reacting to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s news interview.
“Any interested party in Syria should understand that attacking US forces or our coalition partners will be a bad policy,” Director of Joint Staff Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie said at the Pentagon press briefing on Thursday.

Over 2,000 US troops in Syria are embedded with the SDF in the northeast as well as in the enclave of At-Tanf in the south, along the Jordanian border. McKenzie said the US troops and their local militia allies were staying in Tanf, quashing rumors of their impending withdrawal.

“We are there. Nothing has changed,” he said. “The maintenance of that deconfliction zone is important and we would view very gravely any actions that tended to change that.”

WATCH: Pelosi Goes Into Hiding After Shocking Video Exposing What She Did Is Leaked – PRICELESS!

Source: https://goo.gl/scQ6yH
Nancy Pelosi is in hot water after she went on record defending the violent MS-13 gang. The MS-13 gang is a notoriously violent gang that has pushed drugs in America from Mexico and has a m****r rap sheet bigger than Al Capone. These animals have terrorized innocent Americans and Mexicans for years. Yet, the Democrats think it’s okay to defend them, and openly accept them. The Dems are simply doing what they’ve done for many years before. They pander to anyone who will vote for them. This is no surprise since President Trump has come out and openly attacked the MS-13 gang. There’s a patter if anyone is actually paying attention. Anyone that President Trump attacks become the Democrats next group they try to gain votes from.

This has been going on for years in the LGBT, African American, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, communities. Democrats believe that if you tell someone you will get them free stuff, rights, money, food, anything that they don’t have to work for then they will vote for them. Thank God we have someone like President Trump that is actually making progress in each community. African American unemployment is at an all-time low. Barack Obama never did anything of the sort for the Black community. The LGBT community is still able to get married and enjoy all the “Rights” heterosexual people have. The Jewish people now have the U.S Embassy in Jerusalem. Democrats can’t stand it that President Trump has made real progress. The fake “Hope & Change” Barack Obama promised never happened. Obama’s “Legacy” is in the gutter along with the rest of his administration.
It was reported: “Nancy Pelosi openly endorsed MS-13 gang by attacking President Trump for calling them animals and trying to spin it as hating Hispanics for being Hispanics. The democrat party has done everything in their power to manipulate people into voting for them claiming President Trump hates them and wants to ship every single Hispanic to Mexico. This isn’t the case. The President is trying to get rid of the violent criminals, and drug runners. This happens to be mostly made up of MS-13 gang members.

A Republican ad for the midterm elections unveiled Tuesday is aiming directly at Democrats soft-spot for savagely criminal illegal aliens, and using the words of the party’s leader in the U.S. House of Representatives to do it.
And it’s one truth that really hurts.

The ad features video of California Democrat Nancy Pelosi criticizing President Donald Trump for referring to members of the MS-13 gang as “animals,” interspersed with television news coverage of MS-13’s brutal crimes.

Pelosi, who doesn’s come across as very bright even on her best days, ends up looking particularly pitiful in the course of the one-minute ad.

“When the president of the United States says these aren’t people, these are animals, you have to wonder does he not believe in the spark of divinity?” she says.

Actually, you have to wonder if Pelosi believes the words that come out of her own mouth.”
Check it out here:

This ad should be a warning to anyone willing to vote for Democrats. They choose violent gangs over Americans.

As conservative commentator Ed Morrissey wrote on the website Hot Air:

“Overall, Americans split 56/44 in support of using an ‘animals’ metaphor. The question splits young voters (under 35) down the middle, but all other age demos have solid majorities finding ‘animals’ a fair description of MS-13. It’s not popular among Hispanic voters, but only narrowly at 47/53, surprisingly. There’s almost no difference between urban, suburban, and rural voters on this question, all of which back it with majorities. Independents find it fair on a 55/45 basis, while only 25% of Republicans consider it unfair.

‘In other words, getting into semantic games over the use of a metaphor doesn’t look like a winner for Pelosi & Co, which is why the RNC rushed out its first attack ad on the subject. It won’t be the last, since Pelosi’s argument only wins significantly among African-Americans (35/65) and Democrats, but only 41/59. Pelosi’s argument isn’t even a slam dunk inside the fold, let alone outside of it.”

So, with the prospect of Pelosi returning as speaker of the House if the Democrats win back control of the lower chamber in the November midterms, every competitive congressional district is likely to see ads like this.
And that should mean some very uneasy nights for Democrats in the months ahead. Because this truth really does hurt — badly.”

This GOP ad should be the nail in the coffin for Nancy Pelosi and her political power. The Democratic Party has it in their best interest to part ways with the former speaker is they have any chance at gaining any kind of power in the House, or Senate.

Eric Holder Is In New Hampshire and Just Announced His Obnoxious Campaign Slogan

Source: https://goo.gl/s7M8bs
We now have reports that confirm that Former Attorney General under Barack Obama, Eric Holder has officially said he is considering a run for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020. And worse, his visit to New Hampshire today would indicate that he’s serious about that idea.

He even went as far as to announce a campaign slogan, which seems like he’s not even sure what to say. It was like reading a bunch of slogans mixed together because he’s confused. As per the Tweet below, it looks like his slogan might be this: “We can make this country better. It’s not about making this country great again. It is great. But it could be better.” If that’s really his slogan, then how does he plan to fit that on a hat? It seems like MAGA might have the upper hand in the next election. Some people might find it hard to stop laughing if that’s truly Holder’s slogan. It also might be hard to make America ‘better’ after Trump already made it ‘great.’
Holder hinted at running for President before, so this isn’t the first time this topic has come up. If he wants to make the country better, he could start by figuring out his own slogan first.

CNBC reported about this back in February when Holder was “hinting” at entering the election in 2020, but now it seems like he might be more serious about it. They reported:

“Former Attorney General Eric Holder refused to rule out the possibility that he would run for president in 2020, and said he will decide before the end of the year if there is to be “another chapter” in his political life.

“We’ll see,” Holder said when a reporter asked him about a possible run for president during a breakfast Wednesday hosted by the Christian Science Monitor in Washington.

“I think I’ll make a decision by the end of the year about whether there is another chapter in my government service,” Holder said, according to reporters who attended the event.

A former judge and United States attorney for the District of Columbia, Holder currently leads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, a group that seeks to push back against the past decade of Republican gains in state legislatures and statewide offices.

With political backing from former President Barack Obama, Holder said the group plans to spend $30 million during the 2018 campaign cycle.
In addition to a large body of government trial work that would likely provide fodder for his would-be opponents, Holder also worked in private practice for nearly a decade, representing corporate giants such as Merck and the National Football League.

Still, if Holder decides not to run for president, there could be other political offices he might consider. As a native New Yorker, Holder could be a formidable candidate for a Senate seat in the state, should one of New York’s current senators, Kirsten Gillibrand, decide to run for president.

One thing Holder has working in his favor, politically, is his career in law enforcement, on display Wednesday as he defended the FBI, which has come under attack recently from President Donald Trump.

“I would hope that the president would rethink the way in which he has attacked career people at the FBI, career people in the Justice Department, [and] career people in our intelligence community,” Holder said.

Holder also defended Trump’s attorney general, Jeff Sessions, suggesting the president ought to treat his top law enforcement officer with more respect. Trump, he said, should “think about the ways in which he’s spoken about his attorney general.”

If Eric Holder actually runs for President, then who will he run against in the DNC? Will Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders make another attempt? Will Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer try to take over? If we recall the 2016 election, then we know that the Democrats didn’t have too many people willing to represent them in the election, however, the Republicans had a lot of candidates. What does that mean for the Democrat party? Are people not willing to go the distance and square up against candidates from the GOP for the top seat in the White House?

If Holder really runs for President, does he really believe that he has a chance to win? If he can barely piece together a coherent slogan, then there might not be a very good chance for him to win. He has another year or so to practice, so perhaps he’ll have a more catchy slogan later. Let’s hope he’s not using taxpayer money to create a company to make a slogan for him. That’s something he could get for free just by asking people on Facebook!

Something like “Make America Corrupt Again” could work for Holder!

Share this with a friend who would enjoy this story!

Remember When Mocking a President’s Children Was OFF LIMITS?

Source: https://goo.gl/9Rtpho
Most of us are old enough to remember when it was decided that you can mock the President of the United States, and even go after the FLOTUS, but leave the president’s family out of it.

However, sadly, if your surname is “Trump,” those rules don’t apply.
young Barron Trump and most recently Ivanka Trump found that out the hard and painful way since their Father has become our America First President.

I was in the room at the White House in 2014 during the infamous Obama daughters’ fashion-gate. I wrote about it previously.

The Obama daughters walked into the room with their father to take part in the strangest of political traditions, the turkey pardon.

The President’s daughters seem to be private people not very comfortable in the harsh spotlight which shines on their father day-in-and-day-out. As the three members of the First Family entered the ballroom where the pardoning would take place, I remember thinking to myself, “Wow, the First Daughters are dressed pretty casually. Good for them.” However, no matter what I privately thought about the Obama daughters at the occasion, I was not going to tweet, post or print it, ever. Even someone like myself, who came into this profession with a very non-traditional journalistic background, knows the cardinal rule of decent, human reporting: Do not ridicule a politician’s children.

The morning after the uneventful pardoning, my news feed began blowing up with stories about a GOP hill staffer named Elizabeth Lauten, who worked for a backbencher congressman. She decided to criticize the Obama daughters on her Facebook page. Lauten attacked their fashion choices, writing in part, “Dear Sasha and Malia, I get you’re both in those awful teen years, but you’re a part of the First Family, try showing a little class. Rise to the occasion. Act like being in the White House matters to you. Dress like you deserve respect, not a spot at a bar.”

Her post made the media world go apoplectic. It began a 72 hour outrage cycle. Lauten was called racist, bigoted and insensitive. The cultural zeitgeist would not be satisfied unless it received due punishment for the crime. Lauten was of course fired, even though she apologized the same day.

Her political career was ruined forever.

As I wrote at the time, “In a city where image is everything, this is about the worst thing that can happen to a person. To this day, Lauten has found it impossible to get re-hired in the public sector. The media got its scalp and the precedent was set: Do not attack a President’s children.”

Since then, the cultural paradigm has shifted.

Because the family currently residing in the White House has the last name “Trump” the rule book has been thrown out.

This week, TBS comedian Samantha Bee called the daughter of the president a “c**t.” She did not do it in a private chatroom or on social media, she did it before a studio audience and broadcast it to millions on television. Not only that, she had her writers, producers, lawyers, directors, executives, and an entire applauding studio audience approve of her comments before airing them to the world.

Hundreds of people said, “Yes, call the president’s daughter a c**t. That’s great.” After a tiny apology, Samantha Bee still gets to keep her show.

Now, you may say, “Ivanka is in the public eye. She is a member of the administration. She is an adult.”

But this is just the latest in the series of despicable attacks on the first family and their children. Don’t forget that 11-year-old Barron Trump was called “autistic,” a “homeschool shooter,” and accused of animal mutilation. And this happened to Barron just days into the administration.

Professional consequences? There were very few. For Samantha Bee, all she had to do was shrug off a half-hearted apology and she’s good. No consequences. Carry on.

Times have changed. There is a double standard. And conservatives are sick of it.

Demand Grows For Jarrett to Explain HER ROLE in Clinton Foundation Cover Up

Source: https://goo.gl/4E7XUy
Valerie Jarrett, the Iranian longtime close, personal aide to Barack Hussein Obama was thrust back into the public spotlight after Roseanne Barr tweeted an attack on her appearance and also, her association with known terror group Muslim Brotherhood.

Barr was immediately fired from ABC, and her wildly successful reboot sitcom was canceled as a result of the tweet, which she repeatedly apologized for.
Jarrett, who is using the tweet to “campaign” for the radical progressives this midterm, may be enjoying the attention now, but things look to be getting dicey for the far left politician as outcry grows, and people demand that Jarrett explain her role in the Clinton Foundation cover up.

Roseanne Barr’s racially charged Twitter attack on Valerie Jarrett should not immunize former President Barack Obama’s closest confidante from having to explain why she helped cover up and therefore enabled the biggest charity fraud ever, the Clinton Foundation.

The process begins with asking why did Jarrett and Obama push former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination? By July 10, 2015, Hillary Clinton would have been an unelectable candidate had the full truth then been known.

On that day, we have since learned, the FBI opened a full-scale investigation into whether Clinton and her innermost circle of trusted aides mishandled classified information while and after she served as the chief U.S. diplomat. Thousands of pages of FBI and other files concerning this investigation are found here (see especially Part 1 of 21).

A bungler who transacted 100 percent of State Department business over unsecure private servers, using unreliable electronic devices, and who was under robust investigation by the FBI hardly seems the strongest candidate to take on any nominee selected by the Republican Party, let alone an unconventional, wealthy disruptor named Donald J. Trump.

So why did top officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and others in the Obama Administration — likely including the 44th president himself — cover up the true extent of defects in Clinton’s record while and after she was secretary of state?

The answer seems obvious and simple. Clinton, if elected, was certain to destroy or bury all evidence in long-running and wide-ranging activities involving public corruption and frauds arranged through main and satellite “charities” connected to the Clinton family, whose origin dates to Oct. 23, 1997, when Bill Clinton was 42nd president of the United States.

Evidence that Clinton might have helped destroy had she won included incriminating emails and other documents proving the extent to which Jarrett and others were aware of Clinton Foundation crimes, chose to ignore these serious infractions, and worked hard to cover them up for more than eight years.

So Jarrett, Obama, and other senior Democrats likely held their noses and worked as hard as possible to anoint Hillary Clinton as 45th president of the United States.
This decision was easy and inescapable. It remains partially inexplicable because complicity in covering up Clinton crimes began months before Obama was inaugurated, by mid-November 2008.

Hiding the crooked books of Clinton “charities.” After Obama won the presidency in 2008, hard work abetting Clinton family charity frauds began in earnest because a global audience of donors and regulators had to be tricked into believing the foundation and numerous affiliated entities were actually charities in good standing, when in truth they were neither organized nor operated lawfully at any moment during 2008, or afterwards.

The final filing deadline for the foundation’s 2007 federal tax returns, for example, was Nov. 17, 2008 (November 15 fell on a Saturday), so Chief Financial Officer Andrew Kessel signed the return Nov. 14, 2008, and posted it to the IRS office in Ogden, Utah, where it was received on Nov. 19, 2008, two days late.

You will not see the complete and incriminating 2007 return on the foundation’s website here. To see the filing that arrived at the IRS office, you need to visit the advanced search portion of ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer website and enter the federal Employer Identification Number (EIN) 31-1580204 in the indicated field, then click through to the 2007 return, which you can download.

But to understand more glaring defects in the foundation’s record, you need to visit state registries in New York and Massachusetts, among many others.

Related: No, the Clintons Are Not Too Big to Jail