Visit Counter

Thursday, January 9, 2020

The contrast between Panty-boy and Trump...



Well, night and day doesn't begin to cover it!







Remember this?                                             Little different now.













































Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, January 8, 2020

2020 Democrats risk backlash in trashing Trump’s Iran strike







“The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat presidential candidates,” she told Fox.

Yes, Nikki along with 99% of brain-dead Hollywood. This is the typical take from McGowan and the rest of the dogs in Tinseltown. 



Her tweet:

 “Dear #Iran, The USA has disrespected your country, your flag, your people. 52% of us humbly apologize. 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.”




If this guy suddenly became an 'AUSTERE RELIGIOUS SCHOLAR' after his death...



Why didn't this guy become 'A PIOUS MAN WHO CHOSE A LIFE OF ISOLATION' after his?



When Barry droned the bastard Anwar al-Awlaki (an American citizen) how come the Dems didn't attempt to limit his authority to kill terrorists?


--------------------------------



President Trump and Mike Pompeo provide insight to U.S. intelligence on General Soleimani prior to the attack.

A week ago, the top challenge facing Democrats was how to run against Donald Trump in a strong economy.

Now they face a dual dilemma, namely how to run against a president who also, for all the criticism around the globe, took out Iran’s top terrorist.

The most liberal 2020 contenders are ratcheting up their rhetoric on the killing of Qassam Soleimani, which they obviously believe plays well with the party’s left wing. But when the general election rolls around, it could leave them looking like their sympathies are misplaced.

The situation is obviously complicated, and will be influenced by how the Iranians retaliate, the magnitude of the president’s counterattack, and whether Iraq destabilizes the region by expelling American troops. The Bush invasion of Iraq looked very different a year later.

Bernie Sanders cast Trump’s decision in the harshest possible light by telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper:

"This guy, you know, was, as bad as he was, an official of the Iranian government. And, you unleash -- then, if China does that, you know, if Russia does that, you know, Russia has been implicated under Putin with assassinating dissidents."

Now I understand the argument that Soleimani, in addition to being one of the region’s top terrorists and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, was also part of the Tehran regime and therefore should have been off-limits.

But comparing what the president of the United States did to Vladimir Putin having political dissidents murdered is rather offensive. And yet it will undoubtedly draw some cheers on the Trump-hating left.

Elizabeth Warren, while accusing the president of a “reckless move,” initially called Soleimani a “murderer” who was “responsible for the deaths of thousands.”

But by Sunday morning, Warren was describing Soleimani only as "a government official, a high-ranking military official." In a CNN interview with Jake Tapper, she said that next week “the president of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. We know he's deeply upset about that. And I think people are reasonably asking, why this moment? Why does he pick now to take this highly inflammatory, highly dangerous action that moves us closer to war?"

As Chris Cillizza put it, “Wow. We went from ‘murderer’ to ‘wag the dog’ in the space of a few days.”

Again, I get the distract-from-impeachment argument. But why promote Soleimani as just “a high-ranking military official”?

On "The View" Tuesday, it took Meghan McCain three attempts before Warren tersely acknowledged that Soleimani was a terrorist.

Such rhetoric has opened the door to criticism from the likes of Nikki Haley. “The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership and Democrat presidential candidates,” she told Fox. That’s political spin—almost no one in America is “mourning” the general’s death—but the former U.N. ambassador knows her target.

The more moderate Democrats have been more restrained.

Joe Biden, looking at the long-term effects, said Iran would boost its nuclear program and that “this is totally a crisis of Donald Trump’s making.”

Iran, he said ungrammatically, “now is going to be the person occupying and influencing Iraq, which is clearly not very much in our interest." Biden, of course, was vice president when the Iranians agreed to a nuclear deal.

The furor gives Pete Buttigieg, who served in Afghanistan, a chance to play up his military credentials. He dodged Tapper’s question on whether the Soleimani killing was an “assassination,” saying he’s interested in consequences: “Did the president have legal authority to do this? Why wasn't Congress consulted? It seems like more people at Mar-a-Lago heard about this than people in the United States Congress who are a coequal branch of government with a responsibility to consult. Which of our allies were consulted?”

And the former mayor told reporters in New Hampshire: “You could also argue that we wouldn’t be there if it weren't for the invasion of Iraq in the first place, which I still believe was a grave mistake.” (Sanders, meanwhile, is using the occasion to rip Biden for voting for Bush’s Iraq invasion, which is true but also happened 17 years ago.)

Biden, Bernie and Buttigieg are in a three-way tie in Iowa, at 23 percent, with Warren 7 points back, according to a new CBS poll. Warren doesn’t want to let Sanders get too far to her left. And all the candidates have convince voters that they beat Trump, and that means besting him on the foreign policy crisis that is suddenly dominating the headlines.

Saying anything that be construed or twisted into sympathy for Soleimani does not help their case.





Share/Bookmark

Michael Pregent: Iran fears US war – May have deliberately missed hitting Americans in missile attacks








Iranian missile attacks on two joint U.S.-Iraqi military bases Wednesday morning didn’t kill or injure any Americans, according to initial reports – and that appears to have been a deliberate move by Iran to avoid a retaliatory strike by U.S. forces.

Iran had to strike back at the U.S. in some way after an American drone attack ordered by President Trump killed Iranian terrorist Gen. Qassem Soleimani and other terrorists Friday morning in Iraq. But the leaders of the Iranian regime are smart enough to know that if they had killed Americans in their retaliatory attack, Trump would have responded with deadly force.

This could have sparked a rapidly escalating series of strikes and counterstrikes as each side hit back at the other and could have eventually led to a costly war that would have hurt Iran far more than the U.S.


Iran called on the U.S. not to retaliate after the Islamic Republic launched as many as 15 ballistic missiles at the bases where U.S. troops were stationed – a clear indication that Iran wants to avoid further military conflict with the far more powerful American forces.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted after the attacks: “Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defense under Article 51 of UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”

The lesson here is that despite Iran’s tough talk and threats, it fears the power of the U.S. and doesn’t want a military confrontation with America that could lead to a U.S. invasion – the fate that befell its neighbors Iraq and Afghanistan.

In fact, the U.S. killing of Soleimani was such a severe blow to the Iranian regime that it may be the de-escalation event we were looking for to ratchet down tensions with Iran.

As a result, Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani – a terrorist responsible for the death of more than 600 Americans and thousands of others – was a double victory for the U.S.

First, eliminating Soleimani ensures he will never lead another deadly attack. And second, the killing is a stern warning to Iran that the Trump administration is not afraid to attack when warranted.

The killing of Soleimani and other terrorists followed an attack by a militia backed by Iran that killed a U.S. contractor and wounded four other Americans in December. The U.S. conducted airstrikes on five bases belonging to the terrorist militia Kataib Hezbollah in retaliation.

That American action prompted Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes – the commander of Kataib Hezbollah – to join with other militia leaders to attack the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

A day later President Trump decided to target Soleimani – the man responsible for the escalation in Iraq and across the region and the one man whose death would send a clear warning to Iran to back off. Or else.

Trump appears to have asked himself the right question: Who do we take out to stop these Iranian attacks? The answer was Soleimani.

Trump should be commended for ordering the drone strike that killed both Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes –the two most powerful men undermining the U.S. presence in Iraq and the region.

Mohandes’ death could be a de-escalation event for Iraq.
It’s time now for the Iraqi government to tell Iran to stop killing Iraqis, and time for Iraq to target and arrest members of the Iranian-backed militias.

If Iraq refuses, the U.S. must come to the realization that the Iraqi government is more interested in being allied with Iran. That will lead to a U.S. troop withdrawal and loss of support for the Iraqi government. The big loser, if that happens, will be Iraq and its people.






Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

TRUMP: EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO NEW WORLD ORDER



By James D Veltmeyer, MD



The ongoing attacks by the political establishment on President Donald
Trump –which began even before he was elected – are without parallel
in history. The savagery, frenzy, and outright hysteria displayed by
the President’s enemies within the Democrat Party, the media, and the
various power centers of the globalist elites have no prior precedent.

This President has been spied on, lied about, made the subject of
phony foreign dossiers, insulted, ridiculed, scorned, mocked and
threatened. We have witnessed Hollywood celebrities advocate for
blowing up the White House, demand the President be beaten, jailed or
even assassinated, and his children tortured and sexually abused. We
have seen politicians in Washington try to convict the President of
non-existent crimes, investigate him and his family members for
everything from tax returns to guests at his hotels, project on to him
crimes that they themselves have committed, and seed his
Administration with leakers and double-agents.

No other President in American history has been treated in such a
shameful manner. Not Lincoln. Not FDR. Not Nixon. Not Reagan.
What is it about this President that has roused such demons in his
political foes? What is it about this President that drives his
opponents to the brink of insanity? What is it about this President
that so terrifies and terrorizes the Pelosis, Schiffs, Schumers and
the George Soroses?

Is it simply that he is not part of the club, a brash outsider with a
different style? Is it merely because he’s outspoken and tramples on
political correctness? Is it because he’s sometimes unpresidential in
his demeanor (at least in their minds)?

Not at all. After all, aren’t these the same folks who loved Bill
Clinton whose extracurricular activities involved cigars and staining
blue dresses in the Oval Office?
Of course, Clinton was beloved by the globalist elites who pull the
strings on world governments. He gave them NAFTA, after all. He gave
them the WTO. He made tens of billions of dollars for them and their
stockholders through these unfair trade deals that cost America five
million manufacturing jobs and closed 70,000 factories. He also gave
the military-industrial complex plenty of profit-making military
interventions, from Haiti to Bosnia to Serbia and Iraq. Bill Clinton,
for all his corruption, delivered the goods for the New World Order.

Donald Trump, of course, never played ball with these globalists. He
was elected explicitly on an anti-globalist platform that put America
first. From day one, he started to implement that America-first
agenda, earning him the undying enmity of all those whose profits are
secured by selling out American workers, American jobs, and America’s
national sovereignty.

President Trump pulled us out of the TPP. Billions in lost profits
for the globalists.

President Trump pulled us out of the job-destroying Paris Climate
Accords. Billions in lost profits for foreign nations like Communist
China, at our expense. Read NASA's Report.

President Trump began the process of securing the U.S. border.
Billions in lost cheap illegal immigrant labor for the Business
Roundtable.

President Trump imposed tariffs on China, becoming the first President
ever to address Beijing’s annual $500 billion rape of our economy.
Billions in lost profits for corporations who ship our jobs to one of
the worst tyrannies on the planet.

President Trump renegotiated NAFTA. Again, billions in lost profits
for the cheap labor crowd.

President Trump launched the process of extricating the U.S. from
endless foreign wars and avoiding new wars with nations like Iran and
North Korea. Billions –perhaps trillions – in lost profits for the
globalist war machine.

Is the picture becoming a little clearer? In each instance, the
President’s policies have represented a dramatic upending of the
globalist agenda of both parties, the Carter-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama
agendas of continuous war and the continuous looting of America’s
wealth and hollowing out of the American middle class. With both
parties and their representatives in Congress beholden to campaign
donors whose profits are threatened by Trump’s America-first
initiatives, is it no wonder that both Democrats and Never-Trump
Republicans, all Globalist-Socialist, are determined to bring this
President down? Most of the mass media is controlled by these same
global corporations. After all, doesn’t Amazon’s Jeff Bezos - the
richest man in the world – own the Washington Post?
As was said in Watergate, just follow the money. And -while you’re
following the money—see if it leads to a $500 million left-wing slush
fund run by a shadowy Soros and Clinton -linked group called
Arabella Advisors which is funding the anti-Trump political agenda
through dozens of high-sounding front groups.

Folks, the New World Order gang is in full retreat all over the globe.
From Brexit in the UK to the populist governments of Hungary and
Poland to the Yellow Vest movement in France and Salvini in Italy, the
middle and working classes are demanding the overthrow of their
nation-destroying overlords. The overlords who have flooded their
countries with unassimilable immigrants from North Africa and
surrendered their sovereignty to the European Union and its
unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. They have lived the unfulfilled
promises of the globalists, that giving up national sovereignty and
relocating jobs abroad would usher in a new era of peace and
prosperity. The exact opposite has happened. The globalist vision has
resulted in $7 trillion of pointless wars in the Middle East, an
immigration crisis, the loss of jobs, and declining standards of
living.

In the United States, Donald J. Trump has emerged as the New World
Order’s most tenacious and determined foe as he fights the good
fight for the American people, our constitutional rights and liberties
and the sovereignty of our nation . He is an existential threat to
the New World Order. Unlike other Republican presidents of the
recent past, he can’t be bought and has no price. Unlike them, he
doesn’t give in and he doesn’t give up.

Go ahead, globalists. Try your impeachment games. Try your Senate
trials. It won’t work In fact, it will backfire on all of you as
after three years of trying to prevent the Electoral College from
voting for Trump, stopping the inauguration, unleashing Jim Comey and
the FBI, CIA spying, Robert Mueller and his phony Russiagate probe,
tax returns, emoluments, Kavanaugh, and all the rest - the patience
of the American public is wearing thin. We aren’t as stupid as you
think.

Something you will recognize clearly come November 3, 2020.






Share/Bookmark

Stampede at Iran general's funeral leaves 32 dead




And we didn't even need a drone!





But not in the way he imagined.




Looking back...What a f-ing joke!





A stampede at the funeral for a top Iranian general killed 32 people and injured 190 on Tuesday in the southeastern city of Kerman, state television reported. 

"Unfortunately, because of overcrowding 32 of our citizens lost their lives in the procession... and 190 were injured," the head of the country's emergency services, Pirhossein Koolivand, told the channel. 

The injured were immediately transferred to a hospital, he added. 


AFP correspondents in Kerman said the streets of the southeastern city were packed with mourners for the funeral of Revolutionary Guards commander Qasem Soleimani in his hometown. 

People were seen taking refuge on hillsides around the city on state television. 

Soleimani, the hugely popular head of the Guards' Quds Force, was assassinated on Friday in a US drone strike near Baghdad international airport, an operation that shocked the Islamic republic. 


When they say 'assassinated' that indicates leftists wrote this article. 
The multi-colored butterfly is a nice touch, don't you think?


Tuesday's funeral comes after days of processions through the southwestern city of Ahvaz and the shrine cities of Qom and Mashhad as well as the capital Tehran. 

The United States killed Iran's top general and architect of Tehran's proxy wars in the Middle East in an airstrike at Baghdad's international airport on Jan. 2, an attack that threatens to dramatically ratchet up tensions in the region.





Share/Bookmark