OCT 29, 2019
By Mark Dice – 10/29/2019
American media, celebrities and coastal elites are so far gone in their obsession with President Donald Trump, they are willing to praise Islamic State terrorists so long as they don’t have to side with their president.
Much of America greeted Trump’s announcement that US forces had tracked down and killed Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) “caliph” Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi with joy and pride. What country would not rejoice in the demise of a leader of terrorists, head-choppers, rapists and murderers? Apparently, not the America of the mainstream media, Hollywood celebrities, and even many Washington, DC residents – all of whom simply could not resist to bash Trump instead.
The Washington Post been rightly mocked for describing Baghdadi as an “austere religious scholar” in a headline, but their other stories spinning his death as anything but a win for Trump flew largely under the radar. That doesn’t mean other mainstream outlets covered themselves with glory. Apparently hating the very idea of giving Trump credit, they looked far and wide to find something, anything, they could hold against him.
One such thing was that he did not keep senior congressional Democrats in the loop about the operation. How dare he! They’re only trampling law and precedent in trying to impeach him on fabricated charges, no big deal.
Then there was this gem from National Public Radio, which chose to lead with Trump getting impeached and focused on “dramatic and incendiary language.” Oh, and by the way, Baghdadi died.
Objecting to Trump’s mannerisms over the substance of his actions has long been a thing with the mainstream media, but this time it led to some truly bizarre reactions. Just like the time when Democrats and the media sided with the notorious MS-13 gang, just because Trump called them “animals,” they now objected to Trump’s description of Baghdadi’s death because they read it as somehow offensive to dogs.
‘Halloween’ star Jamie Lee Curtis, for example, tweeted that “ALL living things suffer when they are blown up,” and that dogs are “brave, bold, loyal, loving and healing,” not that Trump would understand.
Trump’s “he died like a dog” may have gone right over the heads of American liberals, but it was perfectly clear in the Muslim world, for which it was intended. Islam considers dogs unclean, and describing Al-Baghdadi that way diminished any claim to religious legitimacy he made as an “austere scholar.”
Which brings us back around to the Post. Attempting to somehow excuse the headline, editor Kristine Kelly tweeted it “should have never read that way” – getting an epic ratio in the process from a public that just wasn’t buying it.
That’s because the Post reportedly got it right the first time – calling Al-Baghdadi the “Islamic State’s terrorist-in-chief” – and then inexplicably changed that headline to the controversial one, for reasons unknown.
Confused celebrities, Resistance activists and political reporters all work and live in areas that overwhelmingly voted against Trump in 2016. A great example is the crowd at the Nationals Stadium in Washington, DC – which that booed Trump when he made an appearance at Sunday’s World Series game.
The rest of America – the heartland Trump voters – saw a stadium filled with coastal liberals booing their president as he was doing the victory lap after killing Al-Baghdadi, and getting their karmic comeuppance when the Nats lost to the Houston Astros.
Sure, that had more to do with their star pitcher’s injury than with Trump, but this is America, where narrative trumps facts, every time. One would think the Trump-haters would have got that message by now. Appears not.
Establishment hates Trump so much they can’t even acknowledge obvious win for America
The mainstream media and even some Democrats couldn’t bring themselves to praise President Trump over his decision to raid and kill the infamous ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Instead, they deployed every form of spin and criticism they could muster in attempt to make Trump look bad for vanquishing the world’s most wanted man.
Here are a few examples:
Some pundits lamented that killing ISIS members only reinforces their murderous ideology.
A CNN panel condemned Trump’s “irresponsible” remarks about Baghdadi “dying like a dog.”
Fox News’ Chris Wallace harped on Vice President Mike Pence for not briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on the special operations raid.
2020 Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders refused to congratulate Trump or the U.S. forces who conducted the raid, instead giving credit to the Kurds in Syria.
“Saturday Night Live” couldn’t even help digging into Trump over his dovish Syria policy, saying he’s “Making ISIS Great Aagain”…the same night al-Baghdadi was killed.
Fortunately, some journalists, like Glenn Greenwald, recognized the media’s shameful behavior and called them out on it.
Stockholm was shaken by three explosions in one night last week. But the blasts didn’t even make headlines. With violence rising, the country’s government seems more concerned with downplaying the problem instead of tackling it.
Three explosions in one night would be front page news in any first-world city. But when Stockholm reverberated to multiple blasts in one night last week, national broadcaster SVT’s nightly broadcast was silent, relegating the news to its web coverage instead. One of the targets, a Syrian Orthodox church, had already been bombed twice in the past year.
But in Sweden, explosions no longer make the news. In 2018 there were 162 bombings reported to police, and 93 reported in the first five months of this year, 30 more than during the same period in 2018. The level of attacks is “extreme in a country that is not at war,” Crime Commissioner Gunnar Appelgren told SVT last year.
The use of hand grenades is a purely Swedish phenomenon too, with no other country in Europe reporting their use on such a level, a police manager told Swedish Radio in 2016, a year after attacks first spiked.
The grenades used almost exclusively originate in the former Yugoslavia, and are sold in Sweden for around $100 per piece. But while only three hand grenades were thrown in Kosovo between 2013 and 2014, more than 20 have been used in Sweden every year since 2015.
More broadly, homicide has risen in Sweden, with more than 300 shootings reported last year, causing 45 deaths. Though homicide rates had been in decline since 2002, they again began trending upwards in 2015, as did rapes and sexual assaults, which more than tripled in the last four years.
Of course, 2015 was also the year in which Sweden flung open its doors to more than 160,000 asylum seekers, more per capita than any other European country. The right have blamed these newcomers for the rising rates of homicide and sexual violence, and Denmark’s former Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told Swedish television last year that he often uses “Sweden as a deterring example” of mass immigration gone wrong.
What would any country in the throes of a crime wave do? In Sweden’s case, the government and media have launched a concerted campaign to downplay the problem.
In February 2017, a month after a hand grenade was lobbed through the window of a police station in Katrineholm and days after another exploded in Södertälje, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs put out a press release debunking “simplistic and occasionally inaccurate information about migration, integration and crime in Sweden.” In it, gun crime was portrayed as a consequence of “criminal conflicts” and rising sexual violence attributed to a change in the definition of “rape” in Swedish law. The grenade attacks weren’t mentioned, and the claim that the government isn’t doing enough to stamp out crime was dismissed.
The publication rubbished the link between immigrants and crime. However, a recent study from the Swedish Defence University has warned that the Swedish justice system is ill-equipped to police the parallel societies developing in immigrant neighborhoods, and newspaper Dagens Nyheter pointed out that 90 percent of shooting perpetrators in Sweden are either first or second generation immigrants.
Swedish police have identified 50 neighborhoods it considers “vulnerable” – a term many have taken as a euphemism for “no-go zones.” In tackling crime within them, the government has come up with some novel solutions, like implementing a ‘grenade amnesty’ last year, and kindly asking residents of violence-plagued Malmo to “stop shooting” each other.
Neither measure seems to have worked.
Still, the government would seemingly rather Sweden be associated with IKEA and social cohesion than immigrant gangs and grenade attacks. After all, admitting to the crime wave would undermine the supposed success of the Nordic model, and suggesting that it may be connected with immigration would call into question Sweden’s self-righteous status as a “humanitarian superpower,” as former Foreign Minister Margot Wallstrom described the country in 2015.
To that end, the government has not ordered a police crackdown in crime-stricken neighborhoods or held a national debate on integration. Instead it has launched a PR campaign to fix Sweden’s tarnished image abroad. The Swedish taxpayer funds the operation of the Swedish Institute to the tune of nearly $50 million per year. The institute is a sort of in-house PR agency that “promotes interest in Sweden around the world.”
Among its projects are English-language videos downplaying the country’s newfound reputation for crime, and the @sweden Twitter account, which spends its time literally telling critics “nothing has happened here in Sweden.”
More than 14,000 journalists, authors and politicians have been blocked by @sweden for asking difficult questions, among them Israel’s ambassador to the country. However, the account’s curators reversed course when some online media kicked up a stink.
“The truth is that we are a country that gives the rest of the democratic world hope,” Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin said last January, weeks after grenade attacks in Malmo, Stockholm and Gothenburg. In Stockholm, an elderly man died when he picked up an unexploded grenade near a metro station.
Meanwhile, with paramedics, firefighters and postmen refusing to serve high-crime immigrant neighborhoods, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven publicly denied the existence of ‘no-go zones’. Stockholm Police Chief Erik Åkerlund told Swedish Radio a year earlier that 50 neighborhoods identified by police as “vulnerable areas” were “more like ‘go-go zones.’”
Less than a week after Åkerlund’s interview was aired, a man was hospitalized when a grenade ripped the facade of a house apart in Lindängen, a suburb of Malmo added to the list of “go-go zones” that year.
Call them what you will, but zones characterized by bombings, shootings, and an atmosphere that forbids essential services from entering without police escorts are no-go zones. Endemic bombings are the hallmark of countries at war, not countries that give “the rest of the democratic world hope.” And “humanitarian superpowers” should at bare minimum ensure their own citizens – native and immigrant – are protected against hand grenade attacks.
Sweden does not have an image problem. Sweden has a crime problem.
By Graham Dockery,
By Jim Hoft – 10/28/2019
Last night President Trump and America won again!
The barbaric leader of ISIS Abu Al-Baghdadi was killed last night near the Syrian–Turkish border.
This comes after every Democrat and NeverTrumper on the right exploded over the President’s recent policy to remove US soldiers from Syria.
President Trump made a statement on Sunday morning.
Trump told the press that Congressional leaders were not notified during the attack due to their constant leaks — including Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
President Trump: No I didn’t. I wanted to make sure this was kept secret. I don’t want to have men lost and women. I don’t want to have people lost.”
October 18, 2019
Retired Admiral William McRaven is back in the news today.
McRaven, a Hillary Clinton loyalist, called for a military coup of the president of the United States.
Shouldn’t the FBI be paying this guy a visit at his home?
McRaven is not a fan of President Trump since the president attacked him in 2017 as a Hillary Clinton fan.
Obviously, Trump was right.
Retired Admiral William McRaven has published an op-ed in Friday’s New York Times titled, “Our Republic Is Under Attack From the President,” urging that Trump be removed from office — “the sooner, the better.”
McRaven’s op-ed gives a military imprimatur to what President Donald Trump has already likened to a “coup,” as Democrats attempt to impeach him with barely a year to go before the next presidential election.
The admiral, well-respected for his role in overseeing the operation to kill Al Qaeda terrorist Osama bin Laden in 2011, argues that senior military leaders have lost confidence in the president and feel he is a threat to the nation.
“As I stood on the parade field at Fort Bragg,” McRaven recalled, “one retired four-star general, grabbed my arm, shook me and shouted, ‘I don’t like the Democrats, but Trump is destroying the Republic!’”
McRaven does not argue that President Trump has done anything wrong in particular, but that he has no respect for America’s values. These values, McRaven declares, involve a commitment to “help the weak and stand up against oppression and injustice” around the world.
McRaven got Bill Kristol’s seal of approval.
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date October 18, 2019
Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) delivers remarks on the Senate floor on Syria. “What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a bloodstain in the annals of American history.”
Let me briefly recount what’s happened in the past seven days since the U.S. announced our withdrawal. The Kurds, suffering loss of life and property, have allied with Assad. Russia has assumed control of our previous military positions, and the U.S. has been forced in many cases to bomb some of our own facilities to prevent their appropriation by Russia and Turkey…
The ceasefire does not change the fact that America has abandoned an ally. Adding insult to dishonor, the Administration speaks cavalierly, even flippantly, even as our ally has suffered death and casualty, their homes have been burned, and their families have been torn apart…
What we have done to the Kurds will stand as a blood stain in the annals of American history.
There are broad strategic implications of our decision as well. Iranian and Russian interests in the Middle East have been advanced by our decision. At a time when we are applying maximum pressure on Iran, by giving them a stronger hand in Syria, we have actually weakened that pressure. Russia’s objective to play a greater role in the Middle East has also been greatly enhanced. The Kurds out of desperation have now aligned with Assad. So America is diminished. Russia, Iran, and Assad are strengthened.
And so I ask how and why that decision was made?…
I ask whether it is the position of the Administration that the United States Senate, a body of 100 people representing both political parties, is to be entirely absent from decisions of the magnitude just taken in Syria?
Now some argue that we should not have been in Syria in the first place because there was not a vote taken by the Senate to engage in war there. I disagree. Congress has given the President legal authority and funding to fight against terrorists in Syria…
Others argue that we should just get out of a messy situation like this. The Middle East, they say, has had wars going on forever, just let them have at it. There’s of course a certain logic to this position as well, but again it applies only to the original decision as to whether or not we should have gone into Syria. Once we have engaged, and made the commitments we made, honor as well as self-interest demand that we not abandon our allies.
It has been suggested that Turkey may have called America’s bluff, telling the president that they were coming no matter what we did. If this is so, we should know it, for it would tell us a great deal about how we should deal with Turkey now and in the future.
Some have argued that Syria is a mess, with warring groups and sub groups, friends and allies shifting from one side to another, and thus we had to exit because there was no reasonable path for us to go forward. Are we incapable of understanding and shaping complex situations? Russia seems to have figured it out. Are we less adept than they? And are our principles to be jettisoned when we find things get messy?
The Administration claims that none of these reasons are accurate. Instead, the President has said that we left to fulfill a commitment to stop endless wars, to bring troops home, to get them out of harm’s way, perhaps to save money. I find these reasons hard to square. Why? Well, we withdrew 1,500 troops in Syria but we are adding 2,000 troops in Saudi Arabia. And all totaled, we have 60,000 troops in the Middle East.
Assuming for the sake of understanding that getting out of endless wars was the logic for the decision, why would we take action so precipitously? Why would we not warn our ally, the Kurds of what we were about to do? Why would we not give them time to also withdraw or perhaps to dig in to defend themselves? Clearly, the Turks had a heads up because they were able to start bombing within in mere hours.
I simply do not understand why the Administration did not explain in advance to Erdogan that it was unacceptable for Turkey to attack an American ally. Could we not insist that together we develop a transition plan that protects the Kurds, secures the ISIS prisoners, and meets the legitimate concerns of Turkey as well? Was there no chance for diplomacy? Are we so weak, and so inept diplomatically that Turkey forced the hand of the United States of America? Turkey?
We once abandoned a red line. Now, we have abandoned an ally.